For the Public Good - The Chalkboard Project

For the Public Good:
Quality Preparation for Every Teacher
June 2016
1
Acknowledgements
The Sustainable Funding Project (SFP) extends our thanks to countless colleagues across the nation who
have informed this document: professional and reform groups, researchers, teachers, preparation provider
faculty and leaders, district human resources departments and superintendents, and state and federal
policymakers. The time they took to discuss ideas, read drafts, and offer comments—often on multiple
iterations of our thinking—helped us grapple with complex issues across the educator preparation sector
in ways we could not have done alone. Their insights and feedback were invaluable. We hope we have done
justice to their ideas in ways that can continue to move these conversations forward.
The report was authored by the SFP team. Josh Thomases, Sophia Williams, and Karen DeMoss
conceptualized the early work. Brigid Fallon, joining mid-project, led research refinements. Katherine
Connelly provided editorial support. Karen DeMoss led the writing.
Design: Chris Kyriakou, Sophia Williams, and Shara Benison
Suggested citation: The Sustainable Funding Project. “For the Public Good: Quality Preparation for Every
Teacher.” New York, NY: Bank Street College of Education, June 2016.
This publication was made possible in part by grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Carnegie
Corporation of New York. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors.
2
Table of Contents
4 | Foreword
5 | Executive Summary
9 | Starting with quality
rising expectations for teachers and students
financial barriers to quality teacher preparation
lessons from the transformation of medicine
our patchwork of teacher preparation
the research debate
19 | financing resident stipends
preparation as a public good
district benefits from paid residencies
Reallocating existing funds for residencies
transforming quick entry programs
local responsiveness and a commitment to quality
27 | making it happen
aligned incentives of yearlong teaching residencies
working towards change
encouraging action
learning from local efforts
32| for the public good
markets and ecosystems
moving forward
34| End Notes
36| Defining Quality Teacher Preparation
38| Key Terms
40| Works Cited
3
Foreword
T
he Sustainable Funding Project at Bank Street College of Education was established to
address a significant problem in public education: how to ensure that all aspiring teachers
are prepared through affordable, high-quality programs so that every teacher enters
the profession ready for the demands of 21st century classrooms. This report tackles quality
sustained clinical practice as one part of the affordability question.
A financially supported, yearlong clinical co-teaching experience in an effective learning
environment would offer teacher candidates an excellent pathway into teaching. This
report draws on the success of the many programs that have already created these kinds
of opportunities. Their results offer convincing evidence of an effective vision for teacher
preparation.
Our work supports districts, states, teacher preparation providers, and others in the education
sector to make it possible for more new teachers to enter the profession through yearlong
residencies. We are exploring ways to carve out sustainable funding streams, building coalitions
to promote policies that will ensure strong clinical preparation for all new teachers, and, in
collaboration with others, developing a learning agenda to document the processes, impact,
cost effectiveness, and cost benefit of these new models.
In response to requests from colleagues and partners across the nation, we created this
framework to introduce the rationale for and pathways towards yearlong co-teaching residencies
as an aspirational norm for quality teacher preparation. This document is primarily designed as
a resource to support partnerships between districts and preparation providers, both of whom
stand to benefit from such models. Acknowledging the role that federal and state policymakers
play, we have also included a discussion of the regulatory and policy environments that impact
the work of preparation programs and school districts. Because terminology varies vastly
between contexts, we have included a glossary at the end of this document to facilitate a common
understanding of the terms used throughout the report.
We recognize, of course, that financial support for other components of teachers’ development
is also critical. Since clinical preparation provides the foundation for teachers’ practice, we have
chosen to focus here for our first report. As our work proceeds, we will share resources on other
aspects of teacher preparation financing, such as aligning preparation programs with the most
pressing hiring needs across the country; providing mentoring for co-teachers; and developing
induction processes that continue to build new teachers’ skills.
As with any endeavor, we know we have much to learn from others and can best improve our
work through collaboration. We welcome your feedback and invite you to join our network of
individuals and groups committed to strengthening teacher preparation over the next few years.
Please sign up for our releases at www.bankstreet.edu/sfp or email us at [email protected].
4
Executive Summary
N
ew teachers want and deserve to be well
prepared to take on the duties of their
profession before becoming the teacher
of record for a class. Across the country, teacher
preparation providers have strengthened their
programs for aspiring teachers, but many new
teachers continue to report being less prepared
than they would like to be.1 Expectations for
students and teachers have continued to rise, but
we have not yet committed the additional time
and resources necessary for all teacher candidates
to learn and practice sufficiently before becoming
responsible for their own classes. Aspiring
teachers need sustained clinical experiences,
working alongside expert practitioners, to build
links between educational theory and hands-on
classroom practice so that they are ready for the
rigors of the job on the first day of school.
When teachers are not well prepared, student
achievement suffers. Turnover rates are high,
costing billions and requiring districts to hire
more new, underprepared teachers the following
year. In particular, high-needs schools, where
new teachers disproportionately get their first
jobs, often face a revolving door of staff, which
thwarts the development of a stable environment
necessary for school improvement efforts and
places an additional demand on established
teachers who must compensate for the needs
of their new and underprepared colleagues.2
For teachers who remain in the profession, a
foundational year of teaching without quality
support can entrench unproductive survival habits
and undermine confidence.3
Too many of the nation’s new teachers are not
set up for success in our current preparation
systems. Although they arrive with many skills
and work extremely hard—often heroically—the
vast majority are denied the time and resources
necessary for the clinical preparation that
would give them the strongest possible start as
professionals.
5
Fortunately, this is a problem we can address. When aspiring teachers
experience a year of clinical practice under the daily guidance of expert
practitioners, they learn to translate the best of educational theory
into effective practice. By teaching in a well-functioning classroom
alongside an effective educator, they gain a deeper understanding
of techniques and strategies that are proven to help children learn.
By becoming part of a school community, experiencing professional
collaboration, and participating in a school’s improvement efforts
for an entire year, candidates emerge with a solid professional
foundation.4 If we want an educational system where all teachers
are effective, such models—generally called “residencies”—
should become the norm, an integral part of teacher preparation
programs and a preferred qualification in districts’ hiring decisions.i
In countries where school systems have improved dramatically,
such as Finland and Singapore, one of the shifts their nations
embraced was to integrate teacher preparation with K-12 school
systems. Aspiring teachers are paid to practice under the guidance
of an effective classroom teacher for a full year before seeking
certification.5 Increasingly, evidence from the United States also
indicates that such a model is an effective way of addressing
persistent challenges facing schools and districts including
• Attracting a diverse group of promising candidates into the
profession,6
• Ensuring all teachers have the skills they need to promote
student growth and learning,7
• Retaining effective teachers, especially in schools serving lowincome and diverse families, and 8
• Creating a teacher development continuum that offers
meaningful leadership and learning opportunities for all
teachers9
“If we want an
educational system
where all teachers
are effective,
such models—
generally called
“residencies”—
should become the
norm, an integral
part of teacher
preparation
programs and
a preferred
qualification in
districts’ hiring
decisions.”
However, scaling these high-quality programs is an ongoing
challenge. Most programs with a yearlong clinical practice for
aspiring teachers are funded through grants, making them difficult
to sustain and grow. A few programs have designed ways to embed
unfunded residencies, but in those cases, aspiring teachers do not
receive a stipend or other payment for their work and must rely
on family resources, take out loans, or work additional jobs on top
of their full-time residency in order to cover daily living expenses.
i
Because terminology varies vastly between contexts, we have also included a glossary at the end of
this document to facilitate a common understanding of the terms used throughout the report.
Executive Summary
6
Many programs avoid establishing residency requirements because
they can increase financial barriers for entry into the profession and
make it more challenging to attract and retain a diverse pool of
strong teacher candidates.
Ensuring all aspiring teachers have access to quality preparation
programs that include a year of residency will require finding the
dollars to provide financial support for candidates. Doing so would
improve the diversity, efficacy, and retention of new teachers—
and, in turn, improve our educational system.
States, districts, the federal government, and foundations have all
recognized the power of this approach, providing tens of millions
of dollars over time to support residencies throughout the nation.
But most programs are small, short-lived, and not sustained
beyond initial grant funding. The result is a paucity of stable,
quality residency programs across the nation—and a plethora
of new teachers who have had less preparation than the most
effective practices would prescribe.
It is time for the nation to recognize teaching as a “clinical practice
profession,” ensuring that candidates successfully complete
rigorous academic and clinical training before being approved
to practice.10 In years past, detractors of the profession may
have seen teaching as little more than babysitting or a career
of convenience; today, though, education is recognized as a key
responsibility of every government in the world and, ultimately, a
public service that grows a nation’s economy and well-being.11
“It is time for the
nation to recognize
teaching as
‘clinical practice
profession,’ ensuring
that candidates
successfully
complete rigorous
academic and
clinical training
before being
approved to
practice.”
We could show our commitment to ensuring every child has access
to good schools in the same way we have offered governmental
support for medical preparation. Because having well-prepared
physicians is in the public interest, the federal government
guarantees funds to support every doctor we prepare, providing
stipends for individuals and subsidies for medical teaching
hospitals. States also support these medical education efforts. We
could make a similar investment in teacher residencies, helping
us achieve our national goal of providing a quality education for
every child and youth. Realistically, though, we do not yet have the
structures, research, or political will necessary to do this at scale.
This is the work that the Sustainable Funding Project—along with
our partners—seeks to take on.
Executive Summary
7
We believe that districts and teacher
preparation providers, working together, can
help to build the momentum we need to move
towards the professionalization of teaching
by creating more publicly funded, sustainable
residency programs. Across the nation,
preparation providers and districts have begun
to reallocate existing resources to fund teacher
resident positions that address student and
district needs. They have developed creative
staffing configurations, redirected professional
development and recruitment dollars, and
created closer ties with preparation providers
to create “exchange of services” models,
where programs offer supports to districts
in exchange for resources that support
candidates in their programs. Districts that
currently fund quick-entry programs—
programs that enable candidates to enter
classrooms as teachers of record with minimal
clinical practice—have a special opportunity
to help build political will for this sector shift.
They could develop a plan to transition the
funding spent on quick-entry programs to
support high-quality residencies.
Districts stand to benefit significantly from
funding residencies and establishing this
type of preparation as the desired norm
for their new hires. Residency stipends can
increase the diversity of the teaching pool,
helping attract and retain strong candidates
who reflect the backgrounds of the students
they serve.12 These yearlong placements
also provide districts and schools with an
opportunity to gather detailed, performancebased information that can inform later hiring
decisions and, by preparing teachers who
stay in the profession longer, they can lead to
long-term staff stability that would improve
schools.13 Residencies also have the potential
to impact student achievement in other critical
ways. As co-teachers, residents effectively
reduce class size, providing students with
access to well-prepared, relatively inexpensive
instructional staff. Residency programs also
Executive Summary
enhance broader school improvement efforts
by providing mentor teachers with leadership
roles that develop their “professional capital.”14
Residencies can also incentivize teacher
preparation providers to design programs in
the fields and geographic locations where
districts have the highest need.
We can make a very good start on this effort
by more efficiently using existing district
funds. For example, substitutes and teacher
assistants make up 18% of the instructional
staff in the nation,15 positions that residents
could effectively fill. Annual professional
development expenses are estimated to be
$6,000-$18,000 per teacher16—some portion
of those dollars could also be redirected to
support the residency model.
Improving teacher quality by providing highquality preparation for aspiring teachers also
offers potential long-term cost savings. It
could reduce supplemental student support
costs—from tutoring to summer school—
that are attributable to poor instruction.
Administrators could spend less time
providing on-the-job training for underprepared teachers. Ultimately, districts could
also save some of the $2.2 billion a year that
is currently spent on teacher turnover, since
graduates from quality residency programs
tend to stay in their positions longer—with
research documenting retention rates as high
as 93% after 4 years.17
Aspiring teachers need access to quality
preparation that includes sustained clinical
practice. We have every reason to believe this
key investment would be a productive step
in our nation’s effort to transform schooling
from the industrial models we inherited
to a professionalized system where every
school consistently develops the intellectual,
practical, social, and emotional skills our
youth deserve.
8
Starting with quality
Rising expectations for teachers
and students
S
ince 2001, when the federal No Child Left
Behind Act required educators to be “highly
qualified,” teacher quality legislation has
proliferated. All states now have federally approved
plans to ensure every child has equitable access to
effective educators.18 In the past two years alone,
some 350 new laws to promote good teaching
have been enacted.19 Perhaps no educational issue
elicits more agreement or policy activity than the
idea that all classrooms need good teachers.
We would argue that these policies also need
to address teacher quality before individuals
are certified classroom teachers, ensuring that
aspiring teachers enter the classroom with the
best foundation possible. This isn’t to say that new
teachers are ineffective; they just aren’t as effective
as they could be. People are not born knowing how
to teach any more than they are born knowing
how to practice medicine or dentistry, architecture
or aviation. As with other professions, aspiring
teachers need extended, guided practice at the side
of skilled practitioners. They need an opportunity
to learn from experts who can demonstrate and
explain the nuances of applying a large knowledge
base to the needs of individual students, making
sense of patterns and addressing unique needs in
an everyday context.ii
In fact, teacher candidates need more time
than ever before to master the growing body
of content knowledge and skills that research
shows they need to support student learning.
Teachers are now expected to understand diverse
patterns of human development, including how
children with exceptionalities and from different
backgrounds learn. They have to plan and deliver
Identifying effective teachers to serve as co-teaching mentors is a complex
yet critical factor in successful residency models. Many partnerships have
been able to establish locally-appropriate processes to both identify and support mentor teachers and placement sites. While approaches vary widely, we
have found these partnerships to generally embrace shared selection of sites
and training of mentors. In some contexts, it can be challenging, though, to
find quality placement sites and well-prepared, effective mentors. Partnerships may benefit from developing strong mentors and school settings as a
first step in their work to establish sustainable residencies.
ii
9
Defining Quality Teacher Preparation
Although current research doesn’t offer uncontested conclusions on what quality preparation looks like,
findings suggest that quality teacher preparation embraces the following features:
1. Processes for selecting and assessing candidates to
ensure a diverse, committed, effective pool of teachers
3. Sustained clinical practice in a supportive
environment with experienced teachers and leaders who
promote reflection and improvement
2. Expertise in child development, content and
pedagogy—including content- and culturally-relevant
pedagogical knowledge
4. Deep partnerships with schools and districts to
promote alignment across the educational system
Defining Quality Teacher Preparation, page 36
lessons that go well beyond lectures, applying
a growing knowledge base about how people
learn to create engaging environments that
motivate all students to explore and master
disciplinary and interdisciplinary content—both
independently and with their peers. Teachers
are also expected to have the expertise to
design and interpret assessments that capture
not only whether students know particular
facts or algorithms, but also where they have
conceptual misunderstandings, what patterns of
performance exist across different populations,
and how individuals are progressing over time. In
addition to these crucial expectations around their
classroom skills, they must demonstrate mastery
of more content than we have ever expected
before and also be skillful collaborators with other
adults in their school buildings.20 If we want the
estimated 1.5 million new teachers the nation will
need in the next decade to meet these demanding
expectations,21 they will need our support.
The teaching profession has embraced these
standards for educators, but, given the current
structures of most teacher preparation programs,
few teacher candidates have sufficient time and
opportunities to acquire such an extensive range
of knowledge and skills. Clinical residencies that
include an aligned set of formal study, offering
appropriate content and theory as well as
opportunities for guided reflection, provide teacher
candidates with the time and structure they need
to build a grounded, applied understanding of
their profession’s standards of practice.
financial barriers to quality
teacher preparation
Many high-quality providers, whether in traditional
higher education settings or outside of the
academy, are beginning to shift their programs to
provide these types of classroom-based clinical
experiences. They attract promising teacher
candidates, supporting them through challenging
coursework and field experiences to achieve
high standards during their clinical practice.
The strongest programs ensure comprehensive
learning opportunities in child development,
pedagogy, and content; form deep partnerships
with districts; and work closely with candidates
during their clinical residencies.iii Their graduates
have a firm foundation of applied theory to begin
their professional teaching careers.22
Although they promise to save money in the
long run, residencies can cost more upfront than
The Sustainable Funding Project does not promote a particular model for quality teacher preparation, but research and professional standards do offer
important principles that can help providers and districts build a shared understanding of quality teacher preparation. We have compiled a list of the kinds
of features most commonly valued in the literature at the end of this report.
iii
Starting with quality
10
traditional models. Sometimes costs are covered
through grants and philanthropy, but teacher
candidates often bear the burden through
tuition and other program costs or unpaid
fieldwork experiences that offer no support for
living expenses. Not everyone has the resources
for those options, and many are forced to seek
additional loans and extra jobs or to rely on
friends and relatives while pursuing certification.
These financial disincentives can mean that those
with fewer economic resources or other career
alternatives opt for quick, cheap programs—or
choose not to enter the profession at all.
Ultimately, as a system, we can’t begin to
guarantee that every aspiring educator enrolls
in the kinds of teacher preparation programs we
all want without addressing the financial and
opportunity costs incurred by candidates. We
need to provide supports for all aspiring teachers
to access quality clinical experiences, or we will
continue to have a patchwork of pathways that
doesn’t add up to universal quality preparation,
doesn’t provide districts with the high-quality
early career teachers they need, and doesn’t
ensure our children all have effective educators
from diverse backgrounds.
Lessons from the
transformation of medicine
We have a strong example to look towards
for ideas on how to change the status quo.
Healthcare also faced issues of inconsistent
quality in medical preparation. In the early
years of the 20th century, the “Flexner Report”
documented the atrocious state of medical
education in many institutions. Though some in
the profession were already working to improve
physician training, as a whole, preparation was
unregulated, standards were low, and graduates
were often characterized as “quacks.”23
The report and its supporters ultimately
contributed to significant changes in medical
education, including closing low quality and forprofit providers and moving quality programs to
academic institutions with traditions of rigor and
research. In addition, extended clinical practice
became a key component of preparation.24
Given some parallel critiques of teacher
preparation quality, including both program rigor
and clinical requirements, many cite the Flexner
Report as relevant to teacher preparation reform.25
However, those discussions typically leave out
the significant financial investments that enabled
the reforms in medical education.26 The Flexner
Report and allies in the profession detailed the
fiscal supports needed for change and began to
rally public will to provide that support. Stipends
for aspiring doctors began to rise after World War
II, and funding for doctors’ training became firmly
embedded into the nation’s healthcare system
when national medical insurance in the form
of Medicare was finally passed 20 years later.27
These investments were instrumental in building
the world’s best model for medical preparation
and top-end medical research institutions.
We now subsidize medical residents’ salaries and
the increased costs of running teaching hospitals
at a rate of $11.5 billion a year—a substantial
commitment, but still less than one half of one
percent of the federal budget.28 On average, we
make a public investment in training our future
doctors that has grown to over half a million
dollars per physician.29
We can, with a dramatically smaller public
investment, forge a similar transformation in
teacher preparation—impacting our entire
educational system. iv Teaching residents—
aspiring educators working for a year alongside
an experienced, effective teacher—could also
In medical education, additional expenses beyond stipends drive high costs, including extra staff, state-of-the-art training facilities, and financial incentives related to higher expectations in medical hospitals. For a high-quality teacher preparation system, additional resource investments—though significantly more modest—might also be required, for example, for rooms with two-way mirrors, collaboration between providers and districts, and mentor
development. This report focuses primarily on the stipend for residents.
iv
Starting with quality
11
Program profiles
Louisiana: A Statewide Transformation of Preparation
L
ouisiana’s Department of Education has played a leading role in bringing districts and preparation programs
together. Through the Believe and Prepare pilot program, school district and preparation leaders have been
able to guide the development of teacher preparation and licensure policy.
The work has been an incredibly efficient use of state dollars. Over 99% of the state’s education budget goes to
schools and districts, leaving less than 1% for the State Department of Education. Through careful budgeting,
the Department targeted less than 2% of its budget for the Believe and Prepare partnerships to create stronger
clinical preparation experiences across the State. For that small investment, more than 60% of school districts
and 80% of preparation providers were incentivized to partner voluntarily to give more aspiring teachers the
opportunity to practice with skilled mentor teachers before they earn an initial teaching license. Participants
agree that the work has been transformational.
Believe and Prepare pilot programs’ experiences have formed the basis for policy changes that would give
all aspiring teachers the opportunity to participate in a yearlong teaching residency, bringing theory-based
coursework into practical teaching experiences.30
be compensated for teaching during clinical
preparation, improving teacher quality and
increasing access to the profession.
Our patchwork of teacher
preparation
Paid residencies are not foreign to education.
Independent schools, public gifted and
talented programs, and many charter
management organizations commonly hire new
teachers as co-teachers or assistant teachers for
their first year. Districts also regularly provide
financial supports for interns in school counseling
to study the nuances of working one-on-one with
youth at the side of a skilled professional. Public
school teachers would equally benefit from a
yearlong residency to master the complexities of
effective classroom teaching.
That’s not how most of our system works, though.
New teachers can legally enter classrooms
through quick-entry programs—whether housed
in institutions of higher education or outside
the academy—with as little as 40 hours of
Starting with quality
field experience. After summer training, these
candidates become classroom teachers, with
few opportunities for practice that would enable
them to discern between strong and weak
teaching strategies. They have little choice but
to use personal experiences and intuition to
make important decisions that directly affect the
welfare of children. How much stronger and more
confident would these hard-working individuals
be if they had experienced a yearlong residency?
Of course, most new teachers graduate from
programs that require many more hours of
classroom observation, followed by a semester
of student teaching.31 Those requirements are
a substantive improvement over the clinical
expectations for quick-entry programs, but
candidates are not guaranteed significant
instructional responsibilities over the entirety of
their student teaching placements. In addition,
many traditional programs enroll students
who are working in other jobs in order to afford
their tuition. Candidates must either forego
earnings during their student teaching semester
or struggle to focus on the full-time teaching
12
Program profiles
U.S. PREP: Jointly Planning Curriculum with Districts
T
exas Tech University hosts U.S. PREP—University-School Partnerships for the Renewal of Educator
Preparation. The name captures the work: institutions of higher education across the nation, including
Texas Tech University, University of Houston, Southeastern Louisiana University, Jackson State University,
and University of Memphis, have committed to incubating new ways to prepare classroom-ready teachers and
to advance learning and innovation in teacher preparation. U.S. PREP builds on successes of the TechTeach
program, which has a 100% pass rate on initial certification exams, a 92% job placement rate, and a 90%
retention rate for teachers over their first 5 years—outcomes all at the top of the scale for teacher preparation
programs.32
A critical component of U.S. PREP is a commitment to strong partnerships with school districts. The vision is for
school and university leaders “to come together regularly to discuss data, to tackle challenges, to celebrate and
learn from successes, and to jointly shape future programming,” says Scott Ridley, Dean of the College. U.S. PREP
has brought together superintendents and K-12 personnel to develop clarity around important district needs
that providers can help to meet. “We believe this type of partnership, where institutions of higher education
embrace the role of meeting district needs, is critical to effectively preparing new teachers,” says Ridley.
experience and associated coursework while
also working to support themselves. As a result,
many of these candidates are not as prepared
as they could be to make the constant, complex
instructional and management decisions every
classroom teacher faces.
At the other end of the spectrum are quality
residency models, such as The Boston Teacher
Residency, and others in the National Center
for Teacher Residencies network, the U.S. PREP
partnerships led from Texas Tech University,
Arizona State University’s iTeachAZ, Louisiana’s
Believe and Prepare program, Relay’s Teacher
Residency option, Ohio University’s professional
development school model, Bank Street College’s
own clinical model with conference group
supports—and many others.v They provide
aspiring educators with extended practice in
supportive school contexts under the guidance
of accomplished educators. Research has begun
to establish that such programs improve student
achievement and teacher satisfaction, boost
school morale, and reduce teacher turnover.33
They also mirror approaches other countries have
used to transform their educational systems,
creating strong linkages between preparation
programs and schools—including funding
stipends for extended clinical preparation.34
The Research Debate
Researchers caution that we need more
information before we will be able say with
certainty which features of teacher preparation
will improve education in the United States.35
Studies comparing effects of various preparation
methods are inconclusive, largely because
comparable and reliable data on the kinds of
experiences that candidates have is unavailable.
We have more than 26,000 different certification
programs in the United States, in licensure
fields that cover everything from preschool
special education to computer science. These
Not all of these program models have been able to secure the additional resources to offer stipends for residents, which means that some candidates face
barriers to entry that could compromise their ability to engage the residency experience. Still, their models offer examples of robust partnerships that could
greatly improve our educational systems.
v
Starting with quality
13
Program profiles
New Visions for Public Schools: A Residency Model with Outcomes
I
n 2009, New Visions for Public Schools partnered with Hunter College and the New York City
Department of Education to launch the Urban Teacher Residency (UTR) to prepare effective teachers for
the City’s high-need schools. To date, 325 novice teachers have been trained in an 18-month program
that integrates clinical experiences in the classroom with graduate coursework at Hunter College. Working
in a host school for a full year, UTR residents are supervised by an experienced mentor around all aspects
of teaching and learning. Following the residency, candidates receive induction support in their first year as
full-time teachers. Mentors also benefit from ongoing professional development that enhances their skills
and contributes to their retention.
Independent evaluations confirm the program’s impact on teacher retention and student outcomes: UTR
residents have a higher 4-year retention rate than teachers prepared through other programs, and students
taught by UTR graduates have better standardized assessment outcomes and credit accumulation than
their peers. Experienced residency host schools now support other schools in the development of novice
teachers to spread these practices across the city. The model has such promise that UTR was selected by
the National Center for Teacher Residencies as a National Demonstration Site.
programs are administered through more
than 2,100 providers, including institutions
of higher education, states, districts, and
alternative groups.36 Some programs serve
undergraduates, while others cater to college
graduates. Some only accept candidates
who already hold certifications, meaning
they bring prior experience with them to
the program; others only accept aspiring
teachers who are new to the profession.
Some, within the same program, accept both.
Getting reliable, comparable data about
candidates’ experiences from this patchwork
is challenging, so most studies are limited in
scope, and they often rely on surveys and selfreports to gather their data.37 Cautions about
causal links between programs and outcomes
are, indeed, merited.
At the same time, we have strong reasons to
believe that moving towards more universal
support for residencies would make a positive
difference in our schools. International
systems that transformed their educational
Starting with quality
outcomes—including leaders like Finland
and Singapore—shifted to funded, yearlong
preparation for their aspiring teachers, offering
one source of compelling evidence for longer
clinical practice.38 Most new teachers also
report being underprepared, and districts have
had to design induction supports to address
gaps left by a lack of clinical practice, including
how to establish a culture in a classroom that
minimizes classroom management issues,
how to conceptualize the arc of a curriculum
over the course of the full school year, and
how to communicate with parents in ways
that build strong partnerships.39 Teacher
preparation providers have recognized the
same needs for at least thirty years.40
Traditional student teaching was designed to fit
within the educational silos inherited from the
industrial era, meaning that teachers stayed
behind individual classroom doors—and
expertise was located outside.42 Cooperating
teachers still often serve in roles that are
disconnected from preparation programs.
14
Program profiles
TeachOregon in Salem-Keizer Schools: With Co-Teaching Everybody Wins
W
estern Oregon University and Corban University, working closely with Salem-Keizer School
District, have designed a teacher preparation approach based on a clinical practice model
that benefits schools, aspiring teachers, and ultimately, their graduates’ future students.
With support from the Chalkboard Project, the partners have piloted a residency model that creates
learning opportunities across the system. Co-teachers are placed in schools in “clusters”—together
with other aspiring teachers—from the first day of in-service to the end of the school year. Professional
development, curriculum planning, teaching—they experience everything in their co-teaching role.
Clinical teachers also receive days of intensive professional development to support their mentoring
efforts, along with ongoing supports to explore how best to guide their co-teachers. Clinical faculty
from the colleges spend a day every week in the school, learning deeply about schools’ particular needs
and building bridges between clinical practice and coursework.
Teachers in the district find that the support they receive through the partnership strengthens their
capacity to engage with their professional learning communities and enhance school improvement
efforts. District personnel recognize the impact on their long-term human resources system that the
co-teaching structures have created, including by allowing the district to vet future teacher candidates
during their yearlong placements. Initial data indicate that teachers who graduate from the co-teaching
program have outscored traditionally prepared teachers on nearly every observation standard their
districts use.41
Their contributions to candidates’ growth is
undeniable, but their expertise rarely informs
improvements in the preparation system.
These structural realities contribute to a larger
problem in the profession: the lack of leadership
opportunities for practicing teachers. Without
meaningful roles to play in their profession
beyond work with their students, teachers
can find themselves retreating into their
classrooms, seeking growth opportunities
outside of the school and district, or leaving
the profession altogether.
The lack of connection between pre-service
and in-service teacher development can also
perpetuate teacher quality issues. Preparation
providers, who traditionally have had little say
in where student teachers are placed, note
that student teachers sometimes serve under
ineffective educators, providing a kind of
triage support in struggling classrooms. As a
result, aspiring teachers’ ability to learn from
Starting with quality
their clinical experiences is diminished, their
preparedness for their careers compromised.
At the same time, struggling teachers’ needs
in such situations are masked by the addition
of a helping hand in the classroom, enabling
a delay in needed supports and interventions.
Although empirical research that tracks
student learning outcomes does not currently
have the capacity to evaluate these kinds of
systemic concerns, research has documented
strong outcomes from evaluations of individual
residency programs. Their graduates have
been shown to positively impact student
learning compared to other new teachers
in similar schools.43 They are sought after
by employers and known for their ability to
promote meaningful learning experiences that
help youth master the kinds of 21st century
skills that we hold up so often as hallmarks of
excellent education.44
15
Program profiles
The Minneapolis Residency Program: Growing Your Own
I
n an effort to invest in those mostly likely to stay in the district, Minneapolis’ Grow Your Own Program
supports a pool of qualified and diverse non-licensed staff within Minneapolis Public Schools- behavior
specialists, substitute teachers, and employees in other support roles- towards earning their teacher
license.
This collaborative program, organized by the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities, the Minneapolis
Public Schools, the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers, and the Minneapolis Federation of Educational
Assistants Local 59, provides residents with both the theory underlying effective teaching and in-school
practice honing their skills in a high-need classroom.
Building on the medical residency model, residents receive a $25,000 stipend along with a reduced tuition
rate of $15,000. Residents spend four days a week co-teaching with a cooperating, master teacher, and
one day a week taking graduate-level coursework. This model has attracted an eclectic mix of aspiring
teachers who not only reflect the diverse students that they serve but also commit to teaching in their
district for three or more years beyond the residency.
Teachers who were trained through residency
programs have also remained in the profession,
including in high-needs schools, at rates above
90% after four years, compared to turnover
rates of 40-50% nationwide in the first five
years.45 In itself, if residencies help reduce
teacher turnover, districts would benefit, since
building expertise in clinical professions like
teaching, dentistry, and medicine takes time.46
As early practitioners log the hours required to
become experts, they improve.
Admittedly, as with so much of the research
in education, these studies only evaluate
individual programs, so other unmeasured
features related to selection and curriculum
might also influence the findings. For example,
in other research literature, programs’
academic selectivity has been credited as the
reason that their graduates can positively
influence student achievement. However,
other characteristics not measured in these
studies, such as persistence and hard work,
might also account for the results.47 Similarly,
Starting with quality
we can’t say with certainty that the clinical
placements themselves are the determinate
factor leading to the positive outcomes for
residency programs.48
Even so, research has found a positive
relationship between the quality of a clinical
placement—for example, being in a supportive
school environment with an accomplished
teacher—and future teacher effectiveness.49
Mandatory student teaching, oversight of
the student teaching experience, and the
similarity between one’s clinical experiences
and eventual teaching position are all positively
associated with test score gains.50 Teachers
with more extensive clinical experiences feel
better prepared and are more likely to stay in
teaching.51 Teachers who feel more prepared
have more confidence in their abilities in the
classroom, and these traits are associated with
longevity in the profession.52
Residencies offer these kinds of benefits and
provide a significantly enhanced learning
16
Program profiles
Relay Graduate School of Education: Sold on the Power of Practice
W
hen Relay Graduate School of Education was founded in 2007, its focus was on preparing novice
teachers for urban public schools. Through the Relay Teaching Residency, launched in 2014,
participants work full-time in school-based roles under the guidance of a master teacher while
pursuing graduate coursework at Relay during their first year of the program.
One of the more unique components of the residency is its focus on “deliberate practice.” For three hours
each week, residents rehearse specific teaching skills in low-stakes settings. After each round of practice,
residents receive targeted feedback from Relay faculty experts and peers, and then practice implementing
the same skill again, building up their ability to perform key teacher actions, such as checking for
understanding or introducing new material. By receiving immediate, real-time feedback, residents can
quickly adjust course and develop productive, ingrained procedural habits—“muscle memory”—that
effective educators rely on every day. For the residents, deliberate practice also makes them more aware
of their own teaching and helps to build their confidence. They can walk into their classrooms the next day
ready to implement the strategies they’ve rehearsed at Relay to better support students’ learning. Through
the program, residents strengthen their classroom skills consistently and efficiently, supporting the idea
that practice is the biggest lever to get new teachers better, faster.
opportunity for teacher candidates in other
ways as well. Traditional student teachers
aren’t integral members of school teams
because they come in after the start of the year
and leave before it ends. Their cooperating
teachers often don’t fully integrate candidates
into the daily life of a class, first because
candidates don’t know enough about the
students and curriculum to effectively engage
their learners and later because they will soon
leave, potentially disrupting continuity for
student learning. Understandably, teachers
are hesitant to risk jeopardizing the longterm goals of their classes by allowing student
teachers to experience extended, full-time
control over the class. As a result, student
teachers often find their defining experiences
are stand-alone lessons rather than regular
engagement in the full range of responsibilities
they will have as teachers.
A yearlong placement, on the other hand,
fundamentally shifts the nature of teacher
Starting with quality
candidates’ relationships to their schools. They
become integrated into the life of both school
and classroom, learning more as a result of
their authentic experiences and getting deeper
mentoring from their co-teachers, who have
ample opportunities over the course of a year
to understand where candidates might need
more support and practice. By working in one
classroom over the course of a full school year,
residents have the opportunity to experience
firsthand, with expert guidance, the complex
interplay of curricular progression, classroom
culture, and individual student strengths,
needs, and personalities that marks a year in
the life of a school.
Finally, studies consistently document that
experience is the most important factor in a
new teacher’s effectiveness, and the steepest
learning curve for teachers occurs between
the first and second year of teaching.53 In
teaching, experience matters, especially in
the early years, but for most teachers the first
17
year of extended experience happens alone
in their classrooms. If we want well-prepared
teachers for all our students—teachers who
have the kinds of experiences that encourage
them to stay in the profession—we need a
system that moves educators further along the
learning curve before they are leading their own
classrooms.
outcomes across the nation.54 Standards
for practice will evolve as we are able to
learn more about the intricacies of the many
variables that influence teacher preparation
and its relationship to teacher quality. In the
meantime, though, our children deserve our
commitment to work from the best benchmarks
for quality that are available.
As Tony Bryk has argued, we still have a lot
to learn about how best to scale or replicate
program specifics in ways that ensure better
Teacher Effectiveness
Getting ahead of the curve
Experience matters, especially in the early years.
Most teachers face their steepest learning curve
between their first and second years of teaching.
By spending a pre-service year co-teaching at the
side of an experienced colleague, new teachers
will be further along the learning curve before
they take over their own classrooms.
0
1
2
3
4
5
Years of Experience
Starting with quality
18
Financing teacher
residencies
Preparation as a Public Good
I
n other industrialized countries, quality teacher
preparation programs are part of higher education
systems that provide subsidized degrees across a
range of disciplines. Frequently, this means that citizens
do not pay tuition; even foreign nationals often pay less
tuition than the average college student pays in the U.S.
In many cases, the nations whose educational outcomes
frequently lead the world also provide living stipends
for students pursuing teaching careers.55 In general,
education is seen as a public good, and individuals are
supported and even incentivized to pursue teaching as a
lifetime profession.
In the United States, access to higher education,
including teacher preparation programs, relies heavily
on individual tuition. In some cases, these costs are
subsidized through dedicated funding. For example, if
candidates have qualifying loans and choose to teach
in high-needs areas or underserved communities,
loan forgiveness packages can reduce debt over time.
In addition, some preparation providers have been
able to design programs that allow candidates access
to AmeriCorps or other funds designed to support
public service, providing living wages during their
training. However, the existing cost structures for
teacher preparation in the United States overall can
make it challenging for preparation providers to offer
opportunities for strong clinical practice through
residencies without placing the cost burden on the
aspiring teachers themselves.
United States policymakers are beginning to rethink
our overall approach to funding higher education
participation, which could reduce some of the
challenges current programs face in providing quality
teacher preparation. In the meantime, we can work
within the existing framework in a targeted way to
reduce cost barriers for entering teachers to enroll in
quality programs. While we don’t anticipate we can
fully fund residencies for all aspiring teachers out of
current budgets, districts and providers could support
a significant number of residencies by working in
close partnership to reallocate resources and redesign
staffing structures in ways that free up dollars to
19
dedicate to residencies. This would be an
important first step in building a nationwide
commitment to sustainable funding for highquality teacher preparation. Such shifts would
serve the public well and help us research the
benefits of stronger preparation, building the
case for additional public funding.
District Benefits from Paid
Residencies
Yearlong teaching residencies offer clear
immediate benefits to districts. As in other
professions
that
fund
residency-type
experiences, teacher residents work as part of
teams to meet real needs of those they serve.
Although not yet licensed, pre-service teacher
candidates typically have the foundational
preparation needed to provide many forms of
direct service within the profession’s standards of
practice. Well-designed residency programs offer
candidates mentored learning experiences and
also provide increased instructional support
in the classroom—directly benefitting their
students and helping support schools’ broader
improvement goals.
Residencies also offer employers in-depth
knowledge of their future applicants; in effect,
candidates experience extended job interviews.
Other industries have long recognized the value
of getting to know candidates before offering
them permanent positions. For example,
college cooperative programs in competitive
business fields pay interns an average of $17 an
hour, affording companies the opportunity to
get to know how potential hires might fit their
organizations’ needs.56 Districts similarly can
gain in-depth knowledge of potential future
hires’ performance through residencies.
Even though benefits to districts are clear, tight
education budgets can make it challenging
to consider investing in residencies—but it’s
financing teacher residencies
critical to note that they are more an investment
than a cost. They offer district leadership a clear
path to address costly systemic issues, including
the following:
• Residency programs have been shown to
reduce teacher turnover. High attrition rates
are estimated to cost $2.2 billion annually
across the United States.57 Lower attrition
rates would reduce “finder fees” for quick
entry candidates, which are estimated at
more than $1 million for every 200 recruits,58
as well as other recurring hiring costs such
as personnel processing and certification
tracking.
• Students taught by effective teachers are
more likely to stay on grade level, potentially
reducing costs associated with summer
school, grade retention, and tutoring—
itself a multi-billion dollar industry, paid for
both by parents and school districts.59
• The better prepared teachers are, the
better schools can become. Strong schools
help students develop in ways that ensure
their future success. Quality education
is associated with fewer dropouts,
better health, less dependence on social
services—all of which reduce taxpayer costs
in the long run.60 In addition, states whose
populations are better educated have
stronger economies and larger tax bases.61
Reallocating Existing Funds
for Residencies
As districts begin planning to reallocate
resources toward teacher residencies, two major
considerations emerge: What funding streams
can be used to pay for certain costs? And which
existing budget line items might address specific
instructional needs residents could also fulfill
while pursuing their studies?
20
Funding streams carry with them different
requirements and allocation rules. Local and
state funding often have fewer regulatory
constraints than federal dollars, so districts can
generally reallocate dollars from these sources
to fund residencies without many restrictions
on how that funding is used. In some cases,
residency programs are also aligned to federal
priorities. For example, reauthorizations of the
1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) have allowed funding for student supports
and school improvement. Both Title I and Title II
of the 2015 reauthorization, the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA), would allow dollars to be
allocated for stipends if programs met federal
goals. Similarly, funding in the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) could be used
to support residencies that serve students with
disabilities, which could also develop a strong
pipeline of quality teachers in this high-need
area. Supplemental service provision and class
size reductions using co-teachers or classroom
assistants are already standard expenditures in
both ESEA and IDEA. Residents in well-designed
preparation programs could effectively meet
both of those needs as part of a comprehensive
district staffing strategy.
Existing district budget line items offer several
resource reallocation possibilities since residents
can serve in many roles that are currently paid in
schools. Reallocated dollars from these funding
streams could be used flexibly—providing monies
for the entire residency effort, not necessarily
going exclusively or directly to residents’ stipends.
As full-time students, residents can be paid
through internship stipends, which rarely carry
benefits and are not subject to Social Security
and Medicare withholding, reducing traditional
staffing costs for entry-level assistant positions
by as much as 45%. Districts that pursue these
options can realize significant staffing benefits,
increasing the number of individuals supporting
students in their schools.
financing teacher residencies
Below are three relatively large budget areas
for most districts—staffing, professional
development, and recruitment—that offer
possibilities to embed more residency funding into
standard budget lines.
Current Staffing Dollars
Only 3% of the nation’s teaching force each year
are new teacher hires who have just graduated
from certification programs.62 Districts typically
allocate 70% to 80% of their budgets to
personnel; using even a small portion of these
staffing dollars to support residents who are
likely future hires is a smart investment.
Reallocation of staffing dollars will, though,
require attention to three issues. The first
is fairness—no one should be let go so that
aspiring teachers can have paid residencies.
Rather, as natural attrition occurs—
retirements, transfers, career changes—
districts could explore slowly growing the funds
for residencies.
The second is equity. Often, individuals in nonteacher staffing lines are often members of
historically underrepresented communities.
They are powerful role models, provide bridges
between social, emotional, and academic worlds,
and build school-community relations. Rather
than losing these important contributors to
student development, districts might explore
“grow your own” programs, supporting aspiring
teachers from the local community through
college and residency programs.63
The third is size of the stipend. Ultimately,
stipend levels will depend on the interplay
between local markets and district needs. The
right level would makes the residency both
attractive and viable for candidates.
Residents can work with small groups, tutor,
serve in delimited substitute roles, and coteach, receiving stipends from some of the
21
savings their residency positions offer in these
line item areas.64 In all cases, questions of
quality—both of residents’ learning experience
and students’ classroom learning—should be
part of program models.
The examples below come from budgeting
strategies that districts and providers across
the nation have shared. They have used these
approaches to address overall cost challenges
in their partnerships. Broadening such
strategies could grow the dollars available for
residencies.
Assistant teacher lines. The nation spends
$25 billion dollars a year to pay a million
assistant teachers—12% of the overall
teaching force—at a cost of approximately
$32,000 per employee.65 Assistant
teachers help lower class sizes by providing
individualized attention for students in
need of additional supports. Residents
are not only qualified to fill such roles,
but would be strongly motivated to do so
effectively, since they are likely to want a
future position in the district.
Substitute teacher lines. The nation hires
more than half a million substitute teachers a
year—nearly 7% of the teaching force—at an
average cost of $30,000 a year per fulltime equivalent teacher.66 Residents could
be placed in clusters—5-10 in a school—
engaging their clinical practice four days a
week and available to substitute as needed
one day a week. As members of the school,
they would understand its culture and
norms, minimizing instructional disruption
for students. At the same time, they would
gain important experience as teachers. The
dollars saved in substitute salaries could
go towards overall program costs, and
the broader exposure residents would get
to educational needs across classrooms
financing teacher residencies
would provide opportunity for reflective
learning during the residency.
Supplemental school programming.
Residents could work in before- and afterschool programs, summer school, and
other supplemental school programming.
For example, after school programs cost an
average of over $600 a week per teacher;
by restructuring staffing to incorporate
resident supports, some of these dollars
might be saved and reallocated.67 Working in
supplemental programs with the students
they are learning to teach is a far better
way to fund residents’ living expenses than
external employment in unrelated fields.
Professional Development Dollars
In most cases, research has found that it
is challenging to show the links between
professional development and improved
outcomes for students. Some studies have
shown positive impacts in math and science,
and intensive, sustained trainings are more
likely to offer improvements in teachers’
effectiveness.68 But in general, the money
we spend on in-service training—estimated
between $6,000 and $18,000 per teacher per
year—appears not to offer much return on
investment.69 Some of these funds could be
redirected towards professional development
efforts that strengthen both beginning
resident and mentor supports, enhancing
the effectiveness of these important district
dollars. Preparation providers could design
professional development models that not only
support their residents but also enhance overall
school or district teacher development efforts,
potentially adding cost savings. Additionally,
the need for intensive new teacher supports
might, over time, be reduced, allowing for
even more dollars to be allocated towards
residencies.
22
Repurposing Recruitment Dollars
Increasingly, district budgets include a range of
expenditures focused on teacher recruitment
efforts for high-needs areas.70 Districts allocate
resources for signing bonuses, pay salary
differentials for teachers matriculating through
quick entry routes and into hard-to-staff fields,
hire staff and pay travel expenses for outof-state and overseas recruitment, create
advertising campaigns, and pay expenses for
induction programs and relocation supports
for non-local recruits. Refocusing dollars on
residencies for high-needs fields could meet
the same staffing goals and, by building a more
stable teaching force, also ultimately reduce
the recurring costs associated with teacher
turnover.
Transforming Quick-Entry
Programs into Residencies
In some places, districts already have funding
dedicated to teacher certification through
quick-entry programs that ensure that there
are enough teachers available each fall to teach
in high-needs areas and hard-to-staff schools.
Often, district costs over and above the firstyear teacher salaries for these programs
range from $10,000 to $25,000 a year. By
strategically supplementing the quick-entry
budget, perhaps through philanthropic dollars,
and better projecting long-term staffing needs,
a district could add a few additional candidates
to their summer quick-entry program each
year—but place them in quality co-teaching
residencies rather than alone in classrooms.
The following year, those additional candidates
would be well prepared to staff high-needs
classrooms, reducing the numbers of teachers
needed through the quick-entry program.
For example, if a district currently trains and
hires 100 quick entry teachers, supplemental
funding for a cohort of 20 people each year
financing teacher residencies
would reduce the need for quick-entry teachers
by 20 teachers the following year, since
those residents would be ready for their own
classrooms the following year. Within 5 years,
the dollars that had been used for the quickentry program would be available for 100
yearlong residency stipends, bringing future
savings and benefits to the district through
increased retention and improved teacher
effectiveness.
Local Responsiveness and a
Commitment to Quality
Each of these financial models offers different
possibilities for meeting local needs, and the
viability for different combinations of models
will vary across the country. For example, in
districts where the assistant teacher lines
and IDEA funding streams are effectively tied
to meeting the needs of special education
students, it would not make sense to shift
those dollars towards residencies. On the
other hand, in districts where teachers
and principals have given feedback that
professional development is less than helpful,
providers and school leaders could design new
systems that coordinate staff development
with resident training and free up dollars for
resident stipends. In districts where schools
currently staff large numbers of individuals to
provide supplemental services for students,
using those dollars to support residents could
prove beneficial for all.
Residency focus areas also can vary. Large
districts might develop cohorts of residents
in high-need areas or hard-to-staff schools,
while rural areas might be able to create
opportunities for local aspiring teachers—
building from the strengths of “grow-yourown” programs—by developing hybrid models
that offer virtual supports for portions of the
residency experience.
23
Local contexts can also determine the range of structural possibilities
for residents’ co-teaching experiences. In some places, residents
might serve in co-teaching roles four days a week and engage in
coursework and residency reflection the fifth. In others, programs
might offer coursework and reflection during the evenings or
weekends so that residents have the opportunity to experience
substitute teaching or tutoring on the fifth day. Other residents might
provide early morning, after school, or summer school supports.
Whatever structures are most appropriate for local contexts,
partners should ensure residents’ placements are in effective
settings, carefully guard their co-teaching time with their mentors,
and design coursework and reflective opportunities that maximize
candidate learning. Kenneth Ludmerer, perhaps the nation’s
foremost historian on the transformation of medical education in
the last century, captured the kinds of features that make for quality
medical residencies in his recent book about the history of the medical
residency education:
… the quality of the house officers and faculty, the
characteristics of the teaching, giving residents
the opportunity to assume responsibility in patient
management, the availability of time to reflect and wonder,
the opportunity for residents to establish meaningful
personal relationships with faculty, patients, and each
other, the provision of manageable patient loads, freeing
residents from too many extraneous chores, holding
high expectations of residents, and conducting residency
training in an atmosphere of professional excitement.71
“Whatever
structures are
most appropriate
for local contexts,
partners should
ensure residents’
placements are in
effective settings,
carefully guard
their co-teaching
time with their
mentors, and
design coursework
and reflective
opportunities that
maximize candidate
learning.”
Similar considerations should be part of district/provider partnerships
for teacher residencies. If we restructure programs and fund
residencies without attention to these key quality issues, we can’t
expect the kind of impressive results that well-designed programs
have seen.
financing teacher residencies
24
Promising Approaches to Systemic Problems
Problem #1
We have too many barriers for promising, diverse
candidates to enter teaching through quality pathways.
Quality programs develop excellent teachers, but often
have high real and opportunity costs. As a result, highpotential candidates with other opportunities are
unlikely to enroll unless they are supported with outside
funding. Candidates with limited resources are unlikely
to opt for teaching as a career, especially if unfunded
residencies are required. As a result, teachers are less
likely to reflect the demographics of students in the public
school system. It also means that there are typically not
enough graduates from high-quality programs to meet
district needs.
Promise #1
Financial incentives attract promising, diverse candidates
into teaching. Programs with financial incentives
for participation have shown that well-qualified
candidates from diverse backgrounds can be attracted
into teaching72—and, as the Albert Shanker Institute
recently documented, diversifying the teaching force is
not only a civil rights issue but also a win for everyone.
In fact, increasing teacher diversity helps diminish
the achievement gap since students perform better
academically when taught by teachers who share their
demographic backgrounds.73 More broadly, exposure to
racially and ethnically diverse teachers for all children
can help reduce stereotypes and promote social cohesion
across all groups.74
Problem #2
Insufficient and under-funded preparation is a catch-22 for
novice teachers and their students. In exchange for filling
district staffing needs, quick-entry options that offer
inadequate clinical practice are typically the only pathway
to teaching where candidates can receive tuition support
and salaries while they are training. Other new teachers
find that the certification areas they pursued in college
do not qualify them for available jobs, so they seek quick
supplemental licensure in high-need fields. Both routes
require very little clinical preparation, meaning these
teachers are technically qualified, but underprepared to
serve their students as well as they could.75 They can’t
afford more clinically-rich training, yet they aren’t fully
prepared to meet the full range of student needs they will
find in their classrooms.
Promise #2
Residencies develop well-prepared new teachers who are
confident in their abilities to support student achievement
and social-emotional well-being. When aspiring teachers
are supported with the hands-on experiences needed
to become good teachers of the students they are likely
to serve, they enter classrooms ready to succeed.76
They have experienced the full range of teachers’
responsibilities over the course of the year, so they
have the perspective needed to manage their duties.
They also have a familiarity with district curriculum,
skill promoting student motivation and achievement,
experience working with families and communities,
and a sense of the continuous need for growth through
collegial collaboration that the profession demands.77
Their students are well-supported in their learning.
Funding residencies in districts’ high-needs areas also
incentivize providers to develop programs that help meet
district staffing needs, reducing the need for quick-entry
programs.
25
Promising Approaches to Systemic Problems
Problem #3
We have revolving doors of underprepared teachers
serving in high-needs areas. Too few candidates are
willing and qualified to teach where districts have
the most need. Districts are often forced to dedicate
significant funding to attract candidates to fill staffing
shortfalls in historically underserved schools and in
high-needs areas such as special education, English as
a Second Language, and STEM (science, technology,
engineering, and math) fields.78 The financial incentives
they offer ensure a steady pool of candidates who enter
classrooms underprepared. Once teachers have received
their subsidized teacher certification credentials, they
are also more likely to leave the high-needs schools they
were recruited to serve, perpetuating the need for more
quick entry teachers.79
Promise #3
Residents stay in teaching, reducing teacher turnover rates.
The extended clinical practice residents receive in highfunctioning schools makes them better able to meet
the learning needs of all students. They both feel more
effective and are more effective as teachers. Teachers
who are well prepared are more likely to remain and be
effective even when they end up being hired in schools
that do not exhibit all the qualities of an effective school.
Districts thus face less turnaround among staff across
the system, including in high-needs schools.80
Problem #4
Schools often lack the professional culture necessary for
school improvement. The collection of these problems
makes it difficult for schools to improve—especially
high-needs schools, which disproportionately have
underprepared teachers. High turnover rates preclude
schools from building a strong, stable teaching force,
lowering educational outcomes. New replacement
teachers are also underprepared, resulting in lower student
performance and continued turnover. Both turnover
and low performance are associated with hard-to-staff
schools, perpetuating the cycle. Because these schools
are unable to build the kind of professional culture that
supports improvement, their students remain trapped in
untenable schools.81
Promise #4
Residency programs build and reinforce schools’
professional cultures, ultimately improving student
achievement. Diverse candidates who experience
residencies learn firsthand about the power of
professionalism and collegiality to improve teaching. They
bring this knowledge to their schools, remain committed
to their schools’ improvement, and help develop the
professional cultures needed to improve student
achievement. The schools hosting residents also benefit
from the additional staff and professional development
support that teacher preparation providers can offer.82
Further, mentor teachers find their professional lives are
enriched, providing them teacher leadership opportunities
in a field that historically has had limited career ladder
advancements. They develop deeper “professional
capital” that helps the profession consolidate a stronger
knowledge base, building expertise and efficacy among
partners.83
26
Aligned Incentives of Yearlong
Teaching Residencies
W
Making it Happen
hether people embrace change depends on
how they interpret what change will mean
to their own lives.84 In this case, funding
yearlong, co-teaching residencies benefits everyone
involved—including aspiring teachers, mentor teacher
candidates, teacher preparation providers, schools,
and districts.85 As we begin to move toward preparing
more teachers in this way, we could begin a virtuous
cycle that incentivizes positive shifts across the entire
educational ecosystem.
Aspiring teachers benefit because they…
• Access quality preparation for their chosen
profession without undue financial strain.
• Avoid the “sink or swim” phenomenon of first year
teaching.
• Develop confidence and competence as teachers.
• Learn from guided, hands-on practice with expert
practitioners.
• Build a network of professional supports before
facing their first year in the classroom alone.
• Make a sound investment in their futures,
maximizing opportunities for being hired and
experiencing success over their careers.
Mentor teachers benefit because they…
• Are recognized for their expertise.
• Access leadership opportunities and support to
develop skills as teacher leaders that can support
their schools’ professional improvement efforts—
without leaving their classrooms.
• Have support in their classrooms all year long from
a committed novice co-teacher.
• Avoid drawbacks of short-term student teaching
placements, where candidates are not always
aligned with curricular and pedagogic approaches.
• Influence and benefit from prepartion providers’
support for teacher candidates.
Preparation providers benefit because they…
• Stabilize enrollment through increased numbers of
cohort programs.
27
• Have access to sustainable residency
stipends as a recruiting tool, incentivizing
diverse candidates to apply for programs.
• Meet national accreditation demands for
close connections between providers and
districts.
• Gain important opportunities for applied
research partnerships.
• Bring expertise to school improvement
efforts.
• Better understand candidates’ lived
experiences in schools, supporting
continuous program improvement.
Schools and districts benefit because
they …
• Learn about future applicants to the
district through yearlong “interviews” with
residents.
• Reduce teacher turnover.
• Improve schools through increased teacher
leadership.
• Provide students with additional supports
from residents, who enter classrooms with
foundational training.
• Raise student achievement in classrooms
with early career teachers.
• Reduce the need to provide extensive
induction supports for new teachers to
address gaps typically left by a lack of
clinical practice.
• Influence teacher preparation curricula.
• Realize long-term cost savings.
These incentives are meaningful and real.
They could reduce impediments to change we
have known about for years, leading the way
to a series of shifts that address persistent
problems in education.
Working TOWARDS Change
Ultimately, finding funding to support yearlong,
co-teaching residencies requires a foundational
cultural shift in our understanding of teacher
preparation and its relationship to educational
Making it Happen
quality. Districts and preparation providers
will need to see preparation as integrated with
teachers’ career trajectories, co-constructing
residency and mentorship supports as part of
the teacher development continuum instead of
operating with a pre-service/in-service divide.
To be successful, both districts and providers
will need to change their approach to the work,
including partnering in the following ways:
• Districts and providers will need to
collaborate closely on program design,
enabling districts to benefit from providers’
expertise around disciplinary knowledge,
educational theory, and adult-learning
systems and for providers to learn from
schools and districts about local strengths
and challenges.
• Districts and providers will need to
identify high-quality placement sites
for residents to ensure candidates learn
under effective teachers in schools with
strong professional norms. These sites
need to see their roles as developing the
next generation of professional teachers,
and their residents need to be placed in
classrooms that maximize their learning
with positive role models.
• Instead of simply being seen or functioning
as “pipelines” for teachers, preparation
providers should help establish robust
supports for schools that serve as
resident-placement sites, becoming more
fully integrated into districts’ and schools’
improvement efforts.
• Mentor teachers will need to develop the
capacity to support aspiring teachers well,
learning to translate their experience to
first year practice.
• To ensure a strong, stable cadre of effective
mentors for aspiring educators, districts
should design teaching career ladders that
value teacher leadership development,
and preparation providers should provide
training and support for mentor teachers.
28
Thoughts from Mentor Teachers
A Model to Build Confidence
W
hether we’ve been teaching 2 years or 20 years, when someone asks us about our first year in the classroom,
teachers have a rush of mixed emotions. We all had so many expectations and anxious moments that we often
respond now with words like “If I had only known…” or “I never expected….”
My resident is experiencing her first year of in a classroom as an integral part of a supportive environment rather than
as a lone teacher in front of a class. Six months ago, she was unsure of implementing effective classroom management
and lesson delivery. She is now confident and much more effective. She has experience connecting with students to
meet their emotional and academic needs. She has developed a physical and mental endurance that will benefit her as
she walks into her own classroom. Our class achievement results attest that she now knows how to create a productive
learning environment.
In our co-teaching model, confidence grows, ineffective practices get rooted out quickly, and linkages between theory
and practice develop on a daily basis rather than over the course of years. My resident will enter her first year in
the classroom with more understanding and less uncertainty because she was surrounded by a support system of
experienced professionals—me, my colleagues, our university partners.
She will reflect optimistically on her preparation, knowing she was part of a team providing high-quality instruction.
And she will enter the classroom better prepared to educate our children for the future rather than with the anxious “If
I had only known….”
—Lisa Allen
Believe and Prepare Mentor Teacher
Ruston Elementary School, LA
• Where districts have particular staffing
needs, providers should establish
programs and recruit candidates into
certification areas that meet staffing
projections. Providers should also
establish recruitment practices that
attract candidates who reflect school
demographics.
For these partnerships to be successful,
schools, districts, and preparation providers
will also need to make changes within their
own organizations. • Districts will need to work crossfunctionally and collaborate across teams
as diverse as recruitment, professional
development, and federal and state grants
to find ways to reallocate dollars to support
a holistic teacher development model.
• Preparation programs will need to engage
Making it Happen
in open discussions with districts and
embrace curricular shifts that embed this
work more deeply and collaboratively
into candidates’ experiences, including
creating more practicum courses, sharing
supervisory responsibilities with district
partners, and embracing curricular codevelopment.
• In order to ensure equitable access to
quality preparation pathways, providers
will also need to adjust their programs so
that the number of credit hours and total
program costs continue to be reasonable
with the addition of a yearlong residency.
• Schools will need to embrace residents as
novice educators who are learning their
craft and as members of their communities
who can offer valuable contributions.
• Districts will need to develop the capacity
to project future staffing needs in order to
coordinate with preparation providers.
29
Thoughts from Mentor Teachers
Teacher Career Pathways: Mentors as Professionals
M
y family is filled with teachers, teachers who see their work as a calling. Yet, as I pursued my dream of becoming
a teacher, my beloved role models sometimes discouraged me from entering the field because it lacked
professional opportunities. When my early experiences as a teacher afforded me few leadership opportunities,
my family’s hesitations became very real to me. I grew frustrated and disillusioned. I knew the role of principal was not
the right path for my leadership development; it was too far from the children I wanted to serve. I seriously considered
leaving the profession.
We need to keep our best teachers as close as we can to students to help them reach their goals for college and careers,
but we also need to provide those teachers with multiple pathways to leadership. Partnerships that embed pre-service
preparation programs in schools and rely on excellent teachers to mentor aspiring teachers do just that. Our teachers
now have new training opportunities, a platform to share ideas, and a voice—at the local level where we can truly have
the most significant impact.
The Believe and Prepare program is breathing new life into its most valuable asset—teachers. It is opening up pathways
to leadership that teachers have never considered before. It is saying to our very best teachers: we recognize your talent,
we value your perspective, and you’ve earned a place in our leadership structure.
—Mallory Wall
Believe and Prepare Mentor Teacher
LaGrange High School, LA
Encouraging Action
Through conversations with programs that have
built residencies, we have identified a number
of ways that districts, states, and preparation
providers could better align incentives for actors
across the system to move toward yearlong
residencies, encourage collaboration across
sectors, and build a strong cadre of schools
and mentor teachers prepared for residency
placements.
• Districts could give preference to applicants
with residency-style preparation, incentivizing
aspiring teachers to enroll in quality
preparation programs instead of opting for
quick pathways that might save dollars in
the short term but won’t give them a job
advantage.
• States could offer scholarships for individuals
entering residency programs that are aligned
to districts’ high-needs certification areas.
• To support districts and providers in moving
toward residency programs, states could
establish a policy review committee to
identify current policies that might run
counter to the goals of yearlong residencies,
closing undesirable loopholes for low-quality
preparation pathways.vi
• To support districts in reallocating funding
streams, states could explicitly incorporate
language in their ESSA applications that
highlights the acceptable uses of federal
funds to support residencies.
• States could provide grants for districts to help
cover program costs during the time needed
to design new approaches that responsibly
reallocate other funding.
For example, recent policies raise the bar for entry and exit from traditional teacher preparation programs. It is true that countries that transformed their
educational systems embraced increased selectivity, and strong evidence exists that academic skills are requisite for effective teaching. However, it is also
true that undergraduate education GPAs in general college coursework—the two years before becoming education majors—already averages 3.25. Also,
GPAs and test scores are neither consistently nor sufficiently predictive of whether a teacher will be effective or will remain in the field. Even more importantly, strict academic selectivity often produces racial and cultural mismatch between teachers and students, further hampering teacher retention and
dampening student achievement. It can also result in serious teacher shortages, returning the nation to an era when we lowered teacher standards in order
to staff classrooms.
vi
Making it Happen
30
• States could ensure that all providers operate
under similar regulations so that all pathways
towards certification offer quality preparation
and sustained clinical practice. In this work,
states should make sure that program approval
processes strike a balance between establishing
strong certification requirements and providing
flexibility to design programs that address
district needs.
• States could support restrictions on program
costs that do not directly affect teacher quality,
such as unreasonable overhead charges on
resident stipends if funds come through grants.
• States could encourage deeper collaboration by
requiring providers to seek district feedback as
an integral part of new program development
and overall improvement efforts.
• States could support the development of a cadre
of strong mentor teachers by reconsidering
licensing and evaluation policies in order to
formalize and appropriately reward the mentor
teacher role.
• States could incentivize districts to create
residency sites in strong schools that serve
struggling students to ensure future teachers
learn from the best models.
• Preparation providers could encourage and
support faculty in collaborating with school and
district partners and becoming more deeply
involved in clinical preparation work by better
aligning reward systems such as promotion and
tenure where applicable.
These kinds of shifts will require cooperation and
partnership across sectors, including among some
players who may have experienced their agendas as
misaligned. We believe that working toward a shared
vision that can provide benefits and resources for
everyone will help carve out space for productive
discussions to build the trust and commitments we
need for genuine, mutually productive partnerships.
By forging alliances that tap into strengths across
the system, we can begin to create a more virtuous
cycle of interdependence and improvement. Doing
so will serve our future teachers and their future
students well.
Making it Happen
Learning from local
efforts
I
n this work, we have a lot to learn from the variety
of programs that exist, from both traditional and
alternative providers, as we move towards new models
that embrace and financially support stronger, longer
clinical practice. How providers and districts envision their
programs will doubtless vary widely in response to local
needs. These local models will carry with them different
strengths and challenges, partly related to existing
program structures.
For example, colleges historically designed degree requirements
with the assumption that students attend classes fulltime during the academic year. Although many collegegoers don’t fit these traditional assumptions,86 some
undergraduate programs have redesigned degree
requirements to enable full-year co-teaching placements
during the senior year. In these programs, candidates
with financial aid packages can cover residency living
costs as part of their overall college expenses. However,
this model reduces time for academic study and can make
it difficult for some candidates to master their subjects—
especially for secondary levels.
Other programs have experimented with a 5th year
residency requirement, as The Holmes Group promoted 30
years ago,87 offering more time for mastery of both content
and practice. But candidates usually have to forego a year
of full-time salary and benefits in such models, and the
recent focus on completing college degrees in four years
has led some programs to drop their 5th year post-bac
requirements.
Graduate programs, which are often designed for specific
kinds of candidates—new graduates, career changers,
working adults—require anywhere from nine months
to three years of coursework for completion and have a
range of clinical practice requirements, from quick entry
to residency. Similarly, alternative certification programs
embrace a wide range of model features.88 As noted earlier
in this report, many of these programs have developed
residencies, and the variations across these more
differentiated programs also have different benefits and
drawbacks in terms of cost, preparation quality, and ease
of access.
31
for the public good
Markets and Ecosystems
I
n 2011, the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) wrote
a special report for the United States, pointing
out that teaching in other countries was better
supported and held in higher esteem.89 They
suggested our nation build a more respectful,
professional culture around teaching. Since then,
discussions about the profession have taken on a
more nuanced tone, and over the past few years
both the public and policymakers have seemed
more attuned to the interconnectedness of teacher
professionalism, teacher quality and diversity,
teacher preparation, and school improvement.90
Funded teacher residencies can influence quality
across these kinds of educational arenas—and
promote deeper connections among them.
Building these connections matters. Our country’s
educational system is so loosely coupled as to
have been called a “non-system,”91 making it
difficult to influence change through policy alone.92
Unlike other nations, we have virtually no shared
curriculum across states and districts. Legislative
and statutory processes to design policy vary
widely, as do the actual policies that officials
pass. Funding sources and levels, both within
and between districts and states, are unequal.
Requirements for student assessment, promotion,
and graduation bear little resemblance across
geographies. Multiple certification pathways into
teaching exist in every state, and portability of
certifications across states is limited. All these
variations and more exemplify the deeply local
nature of schooling in the United States.
The kinds of structural shifts and professional
connections that funded residencies require will
benefit everyone in the local educational ecosystems
where schools exist. Myriad factors are at play in
these ecosystems, including district budgeting,
local implementation of state and federal policies,
curriculum selection, professional development,
32
and leadership, to name just a few. By bringing
teacher preparation providers more fully into
this ecosystem, schools and providers will have
more and better opportunities to strengthen their
core work of improving teaching and learning in
meaningful ways.
Realizing these important goals, though, requires
attention to larger market forces. The current
fragmented market for teachers has strong
incentives that promote fast and cheap options
for teacher certification. These pathways might
F
be expedient, but they do not set teachers or their
students up for success. The kind of success we are
talking about is not trivial; it is the foundation for
a strong economy, a robust democracy, and a just
society. Funding a critical mass of high-quality
options can shift the market in transformational
ways, creating positive incentives for everyone to
dedicate the time and effort needed to improve
our schools. It’s an investment worth making—
for us all.
Moving forward:
The work of the Sustainable Funding Project
unded residencies are currently far from the norm for teacher preparation. To support efforts to make
concrete shifts towards funded residencies with deeper district/provider partnerships, the Sustainable
Funding Project is developing additional resources for states, districts, and providers. One of our
upcoming reports will look more closely at different residency funding models across the country, providing
a concrete sense of how programs and districts have been supporting this work. We will also be creating case
studies describing the structures and key features of existing quality preparation programs and exploring
the costs of these models for other locations that might be looking to adopt them. To support for those
embarking on the road towards residencies, we will be creating a roadmap of steps that district/provider
partnerships might take.
In addition, we have found a need for resources that address specific situations related to quality teacher
preparation. For example, the recently passed Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) offers a unique
opportunity to support districts and providers interested in partnering to support funded residencies. The
increased flexibility in the new law allows states to create a much wider range of programs than those
conceived under No Child Left Behind. Doing so would enable districts to design meaningful residency
partnerships with providers, opening doors that could facilitate the kinds of changes we have described
in this report. We are working with states to craft ESSA applications that create these opportunities
and to target remaining No Child Left Behind Title II funds towards supports for mentor and school site
development that will set the stage for new residency programs.
for the public good
33
End Notes
1
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, “The Changing Teacher Preparation Profession”; Levine, “Educating School Teachers.”
National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, “No Dream Denied.”
3
Berry et al., “Urban Teacher Residency Models”; Haynes, Maddock, and Goldrick, “On the Path to Equity”; Rice, “The Impact of Teacher Experience”;
DeMonte and Hanna, “The Best Teachers and Who They Teach”; Clotfelter et al., “High-Poverty Schools, Teachers and Principals”;
Darling-Hamond, Chung, and Frelow, “Variation in Teacher Preparation.”
4
Darling-Hammond, Powerful Teacher Education; “Transforming Teacher Education”; Berry et al., “Urban Teacher Residency Models”; Sloan and Blazevski,
“New Visions Hunter College”; Staub and Frank, “Clinically Oriented Teacher Preparation.”
5
Tucker and Darling-Hammond, Surpassing Shanghai; Singapore Ministry of Education, “Salary & Benefits.”
6
Sloan and Blazevski, “New Visions Hunter College”; Berry et al., “Urban Teacher Residency Models.”
7
Council of Chief State School Officers Task Force on Educator Preparation and Entry into the Profession Members, “Our Responsibility, Our Promise”; Tucker and Darling-Hammond, Surpassing Shanghai; United States Department of Education, “National Teacher Preparation Data”; Sloan and Blazevski, “New
Visions Hunter College”; Staub and Frank, “Clinically Oriented Teacher Preparation.”
8
Ronfeldt, Schwartz, and Jacob, “Does Preservice Preparation Matter?”; Haynes, Maddock, and Goldrick, “On the Path to Equity”; Sloan and Blazevski, “New
Visions Hunter College”; Staub and Frank, “Clinically Oriented Teacher Preparation.”
9
Boettcher Teacher Residency Handbook, 2015.
10
Alter and Coggshall, “Teaching as Clinical Practice Profession.”
11
United Nations General Assembly, “Convention on the Rights of the Child”; Darling-Hammond, The Flat World and Education.
12
Berry et al., “Urban Teacher Residency Models.”
13
Sloan and Blazevski, “New Visions Hunter College”; Kraft, Marinell, and Yee, “Schools as Organizations: Examining School Climate, Teacher Turnover,
and Student Achievement in NYC”; Papay et al., “Does an Urban Teacher Residency Increase Student Achievement?”
14
Hargreaves and Fullan, “The Power of Professional Capital.”
15
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Elementary and Secondary Schools (Including Private, State, and Local Government Schools) - May 2015 OES Indu
try-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates.”
16
Sawchuk, “Cost of Professional Development”; Jacob, McGovern, and Hasiotis, “The Mirage.”
17
Haynes, “On the Path to Equity: Improving the Effectiveness of Beginning Teachers”; Clark et al., “Teach for America Investing in Innovation Scale-Up”; Sloan
and Blazevski, “New Visions Hunter College.”
18
United States Department of Education, “Equitable Access to Excellent Educators.”
19
Education Commission of the States, “State Legislation.”
20
Council of Chief State School Officers, “Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Model Core Teaching Standards: A Resource for
State Dialogue”; CAEP, “CAEP Accreditation Standards.”
21
DeMonte, “A Million New Teachers Are Coming: Will They Be Ready to Teach?”
22
For a description of Bank Street’s externally evaluated programs, see Eileen Horng et al., “The Preparation, Professional Pathways, and Effectiveness of
Bank Street Graduates.”
23
Flexner, Medical Education.
24
Starr, The Social Transformation of Medicine.
25
Kane, “A Flexner Report on Teacher Preparation.”
26
Asera, “Another Flexner Report?”
27
Ludmerer, Training Young Doctors: The Current Crisis; Ludmerer, Learning to Heal.
28
Dower et al., “Graduate Medical Education”; “Budget.”
29
Dower et al., “Graduate Medical Education.”
30
Louisiana Department of Education, “Believe and Prepare.”
31
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, “The Changing Teacher Preparation Profession”; United States Department of Education, “Pathways
to Teaching.”
32
“TechTeach at a Glance.”
33
National Center for Teacher Residencies, “The Residency Model”; Sloan and Blazevski, “New Visions Hunter College”; Darling-Hammond, Powerful Teacher
Education.
34
Tucker and Darling-Hammond, Surpassing Shanghai; Singapore Ministry of Education, “Salary & Benefits”; OECD, “Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and
Retaining Effective Teachers: Pointers for Policy Development”; OECD, “Lessons from PISA.”
35
National Research Council, Preparing Teachers.
36
United States Department of Education, “Title II Reporting System.”
37
Levin, “Empirical Puzzles on Effective Teachers: U.S. Research.”
38
Tucker and Darling-Hammond, Surpassing Shanghai; Sahlberg, Finnish Lessons; Sclafani, “Rethinking Human Capital in Education.”
39
Levine, “Educating School Teachers.”
40
Farkas, Johnson, and Foleno, “A Sense of Calling”; Holmes Group, Inc., “Tomorrow’s Teachers: A Report of The Holmes Group”; Zimpher and Howey,
“21st-Century Centers of Pedagogy”; National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, “What Matters Most.”
41
Western Oregon University College of Education, “Innovations in Clinical Practice.”
42
Tyack, The One Best System.
43
Sloan and Blazevski, “New Visions Hunter College.”
44
Lit, Ira and Darling-Hammond, Linda, “The Threads They Follow: Bank Street Teachers in a Changing World”; Levine, “Educating School Teachers.”
45
Ingersoll, Merrill, and Stuckey, “Seven Trends”; Sloan and Blazevski, “New Visions Hunter College.”
46
Alter and Coggshall, “Teaching as Clinical Practice Profession”; Gladwell, Outliers; Papay et al., “Does an Urban Teacher Residency Increase Student
Achievement?”
47
Heilig and Jez, “Teach for America: Evidence”; Clark et al., “Teach for America Investing in Innovation Scale-Up.”
48
Bryk, “Accelerating How We Learn to Improve.”
49
Ronfeldt, “Field Placement Schools and Instructional Effectiveness.”
50
Boyd et al., “Teacher Preparation and Student Achievement.”
51
Ingersoll, Merrill, and May, “Teacher Preparation and Attrition”; Ronfeldt, Schwartz, and Jacob, “Does Preservice Preparation Matter?”
52
Darling-Hammond, Chung, and Frelow, “Variation in Teacher Preparation.”
53
Boyd et al., “The Narrowing Gap in New York City Teacher Qualifications”; Rice, “The Impact of Teacher Experience”; Kraft and Papay, “Can Professional
Environments in Schools Promote Teacher Development? Explaining Heterogeneity in Returns to Teaching Experience.”
54
Bryk et al., Learning to improve; Bryk, “Accelerating How We Learn to Improve.”
55
“Compare Tuition Fees Schemes in Europe - StudyinEurope.eu”; Singapore Ministry of Education, “Salary & Benefits.”
2
34
56
National Association of Colleges and Employers, “Internship & Co-Op Survey.”
Haynes, “On the Path to Equity: Improving the Effectiveness of Beginning Teachers”; Clark et al., “Teach for America Investing in Innovation Scale-Up.”
58
Heilig and Jez, “Teach for America: Evidence.”
59
“Tutoring & Driving Schools in the US Market Research | IBISWorld.”
60
Belfield and Levin, The Price We Pay.
61
“Economic Impact.”
62
Provasnik and Dorfman, “Mobility In The Teacher Workforce: Findings From The Condition Of Education 2005.”
63
Garcia, “Growing Their Own.”
64
Friend and Cook, Interactions.
65
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Wages: Teacher Assistants” (estimates include 30% for benefits in addition to the $26,310 average annual salary); Kena
et al., “The Condition of Education 2016.”
66
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Wages: Substitute Teachers.”
67
Calculations from “The Cost of Quality Out-of-School-Time & After School Learning Programs - The-Cost-of-Quality-of-Out-of-School-Time-Programs.pdf ”.
Assumptions include average costs of $13.5 per instructor per student slot, average number of students at 12, and a 4-day-a week program for 30 weeks.
68
Yoon et al., “How Teacher Professional Development Affects Achievement.”
69
Jacob, McGovern, and Hasiotis, “The Mirage”; Sawchuk, “Cost of Professional Development”; Fertig and Garland, “Millions Spent on Improving Teachers”;
Blank, de la Alas, and Smith, “Does Professional Development Have Affect Teaching and Learning?”; Yoon et al., “How Teacher Professional
Development Affects Achievement.”
70
“Teacher-Recruitment Challenges.”
71
Ludmerer, Training Young Doctors: The Current Crisis, xi.
72
Anderson and Stillman, “Student Teaching and Teacher Development”; Sloan and Blazevski, “New Visions Hunter College”; Berry et al., “Urban Teacher
Residency Models.”
73
Egalite, Kisida, and Winters, “Representation in the Classroom.”
74
Albert Shanker Institute, “The State of Teacher Diversity.”
75
Staub and Frank, “Clinically Oriented Teacher Preparation”; Darling-Hammond, Powerful Teacher Education; Grossman and Loeb, Alternative Routes to Teaching;
Ronfeldt, Schwartz, and Jacob, “Does Preservice Preparation Matter?”
76
Berry et al., “Urban Teacher Residency Models.”
77
OECD, “Supporting Teacher Professionalism.”
78
United States Department of Education, “National Teacher Preparation Data.”
79
Cochran-Smith et al., “Teachers’ Education, Teaching Practice, and Retention”; Ronfeldt, Schwartz, and Jacob, “Does Preservice Preparation Matter?”; Grossman and Loeb, Alternative Routes to Teaching; Ingersoll, Merrill, and May, “Teacher Preparation and Attrition.”
80
Staub and Frank, “Clinically Oriented Teacher Preparation”; Berry et al., “Urban Teacher Residency Models.”
81
Haynes, Maddock, and Goldrick, “On the Path to Equity”; Daly et al., “Accessing Capital Resources”; Heilig and Jez, “Teach for America: Evidence”; Johnson,
Kraft, and Papay, “How Context Matters in High-Need Schools: The Effects of Teachers’ Working Conditions on Their Professional Satisfaction and
Their Students’ Achievement.”
82
Egalite, Kisida, and Winters, “Representation in the Classroom”; Cochran-Smith et al., “Teachers’ Education, Teaching Practice, and Retention”; Sloan and
Blazevski, “New Visions Hunter College”; Berry et al., “Urban Teacher Residency Models.”
83
Hargreaves and Fullan, “The Power of Professional Capital.”
84
Evans, Seven Secrets.
85
Heath and Heath, Switch.
86
Kena et al., “The Condition of Education 2016.”
87
Holmes Group, Inc., “Tomorrow’s Teachers: A Report of The Holmes Group.”
88
Grossman and Loeb, Alternative Routes to Teaching.
89
OECD, “Lessons from PISA.”
90
“The Path to Modernizing and Elevating Teaching.”; Haynes, “One Year Later.”
91
Mehta et al., “From Quicksand to Solid Ground”; Mehta, The Allure of Order; Weick, “Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems.”; Weiss, “The Inter
face between Evaluation and Public Policy.”
92
Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services.
93
Alter and Coggshall, “Teaching as Clinical Practice Profession.”
94
See, for example, “Academy for Co-Teaching and Collaboration | St. Cloud State University.”
95
See, for example, “Trellis.”
57
35
Defining Quality Teacher preparation
The goal of the Sustainable Funding Project (SFP) is to establish sustainable funding streams for highquality teacher preparation. Resources, whether new or reallocated, should always, we believe, be
connected to quality considerations. Accordingly, we offer some beginning guidance for what district/
provider partnerships might consider when planning quality residencies.
These principles have been developed over the course of several months’ research on teacher preparation,
drawn from a combination of theoretical, international, case study, and large-scale empirical research.
Although current research doesn’t offer uncontested conclusions on what quality preparation looks like,
findings suggest that quality teacher preparation embraces the following features:
1. Processes for selecting and assessing candidates to ensure a diverse, committed, effective pool
of teachers
• Entry
• Academic standards that reflect a capacity to successfully engage with complex ideas
• Indicators of commitment to serving the diverse range of students in today’s schools
• Dispositional orientation towards collaboration, resiliency, and persistence
• Processes to recruit a diverse set of candidates reflective of students in the nation’s schools
and, to the extent possible, in the particular districts where programs partner
• Progression
• Evidence of willingness to learn and improve
• Consistent progress towards the program’s exit standards
• Exit
• Success meeting program standards, inclusive of entry and progression indicators
• Success meeting licensure requirements for the district/state
2. Expertise in child development, content, and pedagogy—including content- and culturallyrelevant pedagogical knowledge
• Child and Human Development
• Deep knowledge of principles of human development, including the roles of language and
culture in development
• Understanding of developmental variation and learning characteristics
• Ability to apply the cognitive, social, and cultural aspects of the psychological foundations of
human learning to create productive learning environments
• Pedagogy
• Broad understandings of various pedagogical approaches, their strengths and applicability,
and their connection to content and diverse student populations
• Ability to make pedagogical decisions that support diverse learners to reach educational
goals
36
• Ability to apply the cognitive, social, and cultural aspects of the psychological foundations of
human learning to create productive learning environments.
• Content Areas
• Understanding of disciplinary and interdisciplinary thinking
• Deep knowledge of content areas related to licensure area, including advanced expertise for
secondary licensure
• Professional Dispositions
• Candidates understand how and are willing to advocate for and with children, adolescents,
and families
• Candidates use reflective skills for ongoing development of practice and understanding of
children and adolescents
3. Sustained clinical practice in a supportive environment with experienced teachers and leaders
who promote reflection and improvement
• Sustained Clinical Practice
• Early field experiences, integrated with course-based aspects of preparation, to provide the
foundational framework for an effective residency
• A yearlong placement inclusive of the beginning and ending of a school year
• Placement settings reflective of district demographic and achievement realities
• Supportive School Environment
• Placement sites with school climates that promote professional trust and learning
• Leadership supportive of adult learning and attentive to aspiring teachers’ learning needs
• Collaborative relationships between and among community, staff, and parents
• Master Teachers and Mentors Who Promote Reflection and Improvement
• Placements under full-time supervision of cooperating teachers with demonstrated teaching
excellence
• Cooperating teachers are given time, support, and inclination to serve as mentors
• Structured opportunities to reflect on clinical experiences in ways that link theory with
practice and support candidates’ development of their professional identities
4. Deep partnerships with schools and districts to promote alignment across the educational system • Deep Partnerships with Schools and Districts
• Programs meet the existing and anticipated needs of the district in terms of content and
grade level certifications
• Programs develop close relationships with clinical placement sites
• Alignment Across the Educational System
• Program designs create mutually beneficial learning opportunities for both providers and
schools to share and benefit from existing expertise
• Program and placement decisions maximize long-term system goals, ensuring quality
learning for candidates rather than short-term needs of providers or schools
37
Key Terms
Because terminology across educational contexts differs widely, we offer this glossary to ground
readers in the ways terms are used in this report.
•
Alternative certification: Teacher preparation pathways approved by state statutes that allow
individuals to enter teaching by meeting a different set of standards compared to those who go
through traditional programs. Alternative program requirements vary widely, and they can be
housed in non-academic contexts, districts, states, and institutions of higher education.
•
Aspiring teacher: An individual studying or intending to become certified to teach in Pre-K through
grade 12 schools.
•
Candidate: An aspiring teacher progressing through a preparation program, often at the stage of
clinical practice.
•
Clinical practice: Intensive field-based placements where candidates who have a foundation of
content and pedagogical knowledge are supported in observation, reflection, and practice and have
the opportunity to hone their craft through gradually increased responsibility for full-time, full-class
instruction.
•
Clinical practice professions: Professions that involve a complex knowledge base, rely on professional
judgment for effective decision-making, have clients that are central in the professional’s work, and
establish both standards for practice and requirements of clinical practice for entry.93
•
Co-teaching: Clinical practice placements where candidates are integral members of the classroom
instructional team and have the opportunity to move well beyond extended observation and teaching
of individual lessons. Although resident co-teachers are novices, their instructional roles are designed
so they participate fully in all class activities, gradually increasing their responsibilities for leading
instruction. Many residencies embrace formal co-teaching models,94 which are aligned with our use of
the term “co-teaching” but do not necessarily describe exactly the same structure.
•
Cooperating teachers: Educators who accept student teachers in their classrooms as part of clinical
practice requirements for certification. Historically, these roles have not necessarily carried any formal
responsibility for candidates’ professional development or assessment.
•
Field experiences: Recommended or required hours of practice with students that aspiring teachers
must complete during early phases of a preparation program. These experiences often occur across a
range of educational settings, with aspiring teachers observing and assisting in their host sites before
moving on to clinical practice placements.
•
High-quality teacher preparation program: A teacher preparation program that ensures all aspiring
teachers experience and are held to the standards of preparation that research indicates are important
for future teachers’ success. Defining Quality Teacher Preparation offers one way to conceptualize highquality teacher preparation programs based on this project’s review of the research and educators’
professional feedback.
38
•
Mentor teachers: Educators who serve as co-teacher hosts for residents. They play key roles in
supporting candidates’ professional growth and serve as partners with the preparation program in
assessing their co-teacher’s progress. In an integrated teacher development system, mentor teachers
also provide supports for early career teachers through induction mentoring.95
•
Preparation provider: Institutions of higher education, districts, and alternative groups that offer
programs and pathways for educators to become certified teachers.
•
Pedagogy: Methods and practices for achieving learning goals that incorporate understandings of
individual and cultural differences, knowledge of how people learn and what motivates them, and
expertise in discipline-based methods to impart content.
•
Quick-entry: Pathways aspiring teachers can take that require little or no clinical practice before
becoming a teacher.
•
Residencies: Year-long, co-teaching placements in a supportive school context under the daily
guidance of effective practitioners, with continued, aligned learning opportunities facilitated by
the preparation provider. The blend of research, theory, reflection, feedback, and practice provides
candidates the opportunity to ground their conceptual learning in effective practice.
•
Stipends: Funds that aspiring teachers are provided during their co-teaching residency to support
their basic living costs so they can focus on their learning.
•
Student teaching: Clinical practice, usually a semester long, that traditional programs require for
certification.
•
Supplemental Services: Additional instructional opportunities that students receive, such as tutoring
and one-on-one assistance, to promote learning. These supports can occur within classrooms, but are
often provided before or after school.
•
Sustainable funding: Funding streams that 1) provide adequate supports for quality programs and
residents, and 2) are embedded in annual recurring budget lines so that quality programs and their
candidates are ensured the resources needed to provide excellent preparation and so that aspiring
teachers, regardless of their means, are incentivized to pursue preparation through quality pathways.
•
Teacher development trajectory: A unified conceptualization of the way that educators
develop incrementally over time, reflecting the realities of teaching as a clinical practice
profession. In such a conception, aspiring and early career teachers experience structured,
well-mentored supports as part of a unified career pathway.
•
Teaching residents: Teacher candidates who co-teach for a year alongside an experienced,
•
Traditional programs: Teacher preparation programs in institutions of higher education that
require uniform coursework and student teaching placements according to state guidelines.
effective co-teacher or mentor teacher.
39
Works Cited
“Academy for Co-Teaching and Collaboration | St. Cloud State University.” Accessed June 10, 2016. http://www.stcloudstate.edu/soe/
coteaching/.
Albert Shanker Institute. “The State of Teacher Diversity.” Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute, September 2015.
Alter, Jamie, and Jane G Coggshall. “Teaching as a Clinical Practice Profession: Implications for Teacher Preparation and State Policy. Issue Brief.” National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, March 2009. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED543819.pdf.
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. “The Changing Teacher Preparation Profession.” Washington, DC: American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 2013.
Anderson, Lauren M., and Jamy A. Stillman. “Student Teaching’s Contribution to Preservice Teacher Development: A Review of Research Focused on the Preparation of Teachers for Urban and High-Needs Contexts.” Review of Educational Research 83, no. 1 (March 1, 2013): 3–69.
Asera, Rose. “Another Flexner Report? Pondering Flexner’s Role in Reforming Education.” Evaluation. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 2003.
Belfield, C. R., and Henry M. Levin. The Price We Pay: Economic and Social Consequences of Inadequate Education. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press, 2007.
Berry, Barnett, Diana Montgomery, Jon Snyder, and Center for Teaching Quality. “Urban Teacher Residency Models and Institutes of Higher Education: Implications for Teacher Preparation.” Chapel Hill, NC: Center for Teaching Quality, January 1, 2008.
Blank, Rolf K, Nina de la Alas, and Carlise Smith. “Does Teacher Professional Development Have Effects on Teaching and Learning? Analysis of Evaluation Findings from Programs for Mathematics and Science Teachers in 14 States.” Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008.
Boyd, Don, Hamp Lankford, Susanna Loeb, Jonah Rockoff, Jim Wyckoff, and Urban Institute. “The Narrowing Gap in New York City Teacher Qualifications and Implications for Student Achievement in High-Poverty Schools.” Stanford, CA: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, November 1, 2008.
Boyd, Donald J., Pamela L. Grossman, Hamilton Lankford, Susanna Loeb, and James Wyckoff. “Teacher Preparation and
Student Achievement.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, no. 4 (2009): 416.
Bryk, Anthony S. “Accelerating How We Learn to Improve: 2014 AREA Distinguished Lecture.” Educational Researcher 44,
no. 9 (December 2015): 467–77.
Bryk, Anthony S, Louis M Gomez, Alicia Grunow, and Paul G LeMahieu. Learning to Improve: How America’s Schools Can
Get Better at Getting Better, 2015.
“Budget.” Congressional Budget Office. Accessed May 26, 2016. https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget.
CAEP. “CAEP Accreditation Standards.” Washington, D.C.: Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Preparation, 2015.
Council of Chief State School Officers Task Force on Educator Preparation and Entry into the Profession Members. “Our Responsibility, Our Promise:Transforming Educator Preparation and Entry into the Profession.” Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers,
January 1, 2012.
Clark, Melissa A., Eric Isenberg, Albert Y. Liu, Libby Makowsky, and Marykate Zukiewicz. “Impacts of the Teach for America Investing in Innovation Scale-Up.” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, March 4, 2015.
Clotfelter, Charles, Helen F. Ladd, Jacob Vigdor, and Justin Wheeler. “High-Poverty Schools and the Distribution of Teachers and Principals.” National Center for the Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, December 2006.
Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, Matthew Cannady, Kirstin Pesola Mceachern, Peter Piazza, Christine Power, and Amy Ryan. “Teachers’ Education, Teaching Practice, and Retention: A Cross-Genre Review of Recent Research.” Journal of Education 191, no. 2 (2010/2011 2011): 19–31.
“Compare Tuition Fees Schemes in Europe - StudyinEurope.eu.” Accessed April 15, 2016. http://www.studyineurope.eu/tuition-fees.
Council of Chief State School Officers. “Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Model Core Teaching Standards:
A Resource for State Dialogue.” Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers, April 2011.
Daly, Alan J., Nienke M. Moolenaar, Claudia Der-Martirosian, and Yi-Hwa Liou. “Accessing Capital Resources: Investigating the Effects of Teacher Human and Social Capital on Student Achievement.” Teachers College Record 116, no. 7 (2014): 1–42.
Darling-Hammond, Linda. Powerful Teacher Education: Lessons from Exemplary Programs. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass, 2006.
Darling-Hammond. The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future. New York:
Teachers College Press, 2010.
Darling-Hammond, Linda, Ruth Chung, and Fred Frelow. “Variation in Teacher Preparation: How Well Do Different Pathways
Prepare Teachers to Teach?” Journal of Teacher Education 53, no. 4 (October 9, 2002): 286–302.
DeMonte, Jenny. “A Million New Teachers Are Coming: Will They Be Ready to Teach?” Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for
Research, May 2015. http://educationpolicy.air.org/publications/start-finish-look-teacher-preparation.
DeMonte, Jenny, and Robert Hanna. “Looking at the Best Teachers and Who They Teach: Poor Students and Students of Color Are
Less Likely to Get Highly Effective Teaching.” Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, April 2014.
40
Dower, Catherine, John K. Iglehart, Ted Agres, Anne Schwartz, and Susan Dentzer. “Health Policy Brief: Graduate Medical Education.”
Health Affairs, August 16, 2012.
“Economic Impact of Student Performance Improvement 2016.” Education Next. Accessed April 26, 2016.
http://educationnext.org/economic-impact-student-performance-improvement-map-2016/.
Education Commission of the States. “State Legislation: By State,” 2015. http://www.ecs.org/state-legislation-by-state/.
Egalite, Anna J., Brian Kisida, and Marcus A. Winters. “Representation in the Classroom: The Effect of Own-Race Teachers
on Student Achievement.” Economics of Education Review 45 (April 2015): 44–52.
Eileen Horng, Xinhua Zheng, Ira Lit, and Linda Darling-Hammond. “The Preparation, Professional Pathways, and Effectiveness of
Bank Street Graduates.” Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity in Education, 2015.
Evans, Robert. Seven Secrets of the Savvy School Leader: A Guide to Surviving and Thriving. Wiley, 2010.
Farkas, Steve, Jean Johnson, and Tony Foleno. “A Sense of Calling: Who Teaches and Why.” New York, NY: Public Agenda
Foundation, January 1, 2000.
Fertig, Beth, and Sarah Garland. “Millions Spent on Improving Teachers, but Little Done to Make Sure It’s Working.” The Hechinger
Report, June 1, 2012. http://hechingerreport.org/millions-spent-on-improving-teachers-but-little-done-to-makesure-its-working/.
Flexner, Abraham. Medical Education in the United States and Canada: A Report to The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching. New York City: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1910.
Friend, Marilyn, and Lynne Cook. Interactions: Collaboration Skills for School Professionals. 7th edition. Boston: Pearson, 2012.
Garcia, Amaya. “Growing Their Own in Minneapolis: Building a Diverse Teacher Workforce from the Ground Up.” EdCentral,
February 2, 2016. http://www.edcentral.org/minneapolis-grow-your-own/.
Gladwell, Malcolm. Outliers: The Story of Success. New York: Little, Brown and Co., 2008.
Grossman, Jean B., Christianne Lind, Jennifer McMaken, and Andrew Gersick. “The Cost of Quality out-of-School-Time Programs.” The
Wallace Foundation, January 2009. http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/after-school/key-research/Documents/
The-Cost- of-Quality-of-Out-of-School-Time-Programs.pdf.
Grossman, Pam, and Susanna Loeb. Alternative Routes to Teaching: Mapping the New Landscape of Teacher Education.
Harvard Education Press, 2008.
Hargreaves, Andrew, and Michael Fullan. “The Power of Professional Capital.” Journal of Staff Development 34, no. 3 (2013): 36–39.
Haynes, Mariana. “On the Path to Equity: Improving the Effectiveness of Beginning Teachers.” Alliance for Excellent Education,
July 2014. http://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/PathToEquity.pdf.
Haynes, Mariana “One Year Later: Can State Equity Plans Improve Access to Great Teaching?” Washington, D.C.: Alliance
for Excellent Education, May 2016. http://all4ed.org/reports-factsheets/teacherequityplans/.
Haynes, Mariana, Ann Maddock, and Liam Goldrick. “On the Path to Equity: Improving the Effectiveness of Beginning Teachers.”
Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education, July 2014.
Heath, Chip, and Dan Heath. Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard. 1st edition. New York: Random House, 2010.
Heilig, Julian Vasquez, and Su Jin Jez. “Teach for America: A Return to the Evidence.” Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center,
January 2014.
Holmes Group, Inc. “Tomorrow’s Teachers: A Report of The Holmes Group.” East Lansing, MI: The Holmes Group, 1986.
Ingersoll, Richard, Lisa Merrill, and Henry May. “What Are the Effects of Teacher Education and Preparation on Beginning Teacher Attrition?”
Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, July 2014. http://www.cpre.org/sites/default/files/researchreport
/2018_prepeffects2014.pdf.
Ingersoll, Richard, Lisa Merrill, and Daniel Stuckey. “Seven Trends: The Transformation of the Teaching Force.” Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, April 2014. http://www.cpre.org/sites/default/files/workingpapers/1506_7trendsapril2014.pdf.
Jacob, Andy, Kate McGovern, and Dina Hasiotis. “The Mirage: Confronting the Hard Truth about Our Quest for Teacher Development.”
TNTP, 2015.
Johnson, Susan Moore, Matthew A. Kraft, and John P. Papay. “How Context Matters in High-Need Schools: The Effects of Teachers’ Working Conditions on Their Professional Satisfaction and Their Students’ Achievement.” Teachers College Record 114, no. 10 (January 1, 2012).
Kane, Thomas. “A Flexner Report on Teacher Preparation.” Education Next, April 10, 2014. http://educationnext.org/flexner-report
-teacher-preparation/.
Kena, Grace, William Hussar, Joel McFarland, Cristobal de Brey, Lauren Musu-Gillette, Xiaolei Wang, Jijun Zhang, et al. “The Condition of Education 2016.” Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, May 2016.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016144.pdf.
Kraft, Matthew A., and John P. Papay. “Can Professional Environments in Schools Promote Teacher Development? Explaining Heterogeneity
in Returns to Teaching Experience.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 36, no. 4 (December 1, 2014): 476–500.
Levin, Henry M. “Empirical Puzzles on Effective Teachers: U.S. Research.” Royal Academy of Sciences & Werner-Gren Foundations, September
10-13, 2014. Revised for publication in volume by Springer, 2016.
Levine, Arthur. “Educating School Teachers.” Education Schools Project, September 1, 2006.
Lipsky, Michael. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. 30th anniversary expanded ed. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2010.
41
Lit, Ira, and Darling-Hammond, Linda. “The Threads They Follow: Bank Street Teachers in a Changing World.” Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity in Education, 2015. https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/scope-report-threads
-they-follow.pdf.
Louisiana Department of Education. “Believe and Prepare.” Accessed March 8, 2016. http://www.louisianabelieves.com/teaching
/believe-and-prepare.
Ludmerer, Kenneth M. Learning to Heal: The Development of American Medical Education. Reprint edition. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1996.
Ludmerer, Kenneth M. Let Me Heal: The Opportunity to Preserve Excellence in American Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Mehta, Jal. The Allure of Order: High Hopes, Dashed Expectations, and the Troubled Quest to Remake American Schooling. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press, 2013.
Mehta, Jal, Victoria Theisen-Homer, David Braslow, and Adina Lopatin. “From Quicksand to Solid Ground: Building a Foundation
to Support Quality Teaching.” Transforming Teaching, 2015.
National Association of Colleges and Employers. “2015 Internship & Co-Op Survey: Executive Summary.” Bethlehem, PA:
National Association of Colleges and Employers, 2015.
National Center for Teacher Residencies. “The Residency Model.” National Center for Teacher Residencies. Accessed March 16,
2016. http://nctresidencies.org/about/residency-model/.
National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. “No Dream Denied: A Pledge to America’s Children.” Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, January 2003. http://www.teo-education.com/teophotos/albums/userpics/
no-dream-denied_full-report.pdf.
National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. “What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future: Report of the National
Commission on Teaching & America’s Future.” New York, N.Y.: National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future,
September 1996.
National Research Council. Preparing Teachers: Building Evidence for Sound Policy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2010.
OECD. “Lessons from PISA for the United States.” Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education. OECD Publishing,
2011. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/46623978.pdf.
OECD. “Supporting Teacher Professionalism: Insights from TALIS 2013.” Paris: TALIS, OECD Publishing, February
2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264248607-en.
OECD. “Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers: Pointers for Policy
Development.” Paris: OECD, September 2011. http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/48627229.pdf.
Provasnik, Stephen, and Scott Dorfman. “Mobility in The Teacher Workforce: Findings from The Condition Of Education 2005.
Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, June 2005. http://eric.
ed.gov/?id=ED485860.
Rice, Jennifer King. “The Impact of Teacher Experience: Examining the Evidence and Policy Implications.” Urban Institute National Center
for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, August 1, 2010.
Ronfeldt, Matthew. “Field Placement Schools and Instructional Effectiveness.” Journal of Teacher Education 66, no. 4 (October 2015):304–20.
Ronfeldt, Matthew, Nathaniel Schwartz, and Brian Jacob. “Does Preservice Preparation Matter? Examining an Old Question in New Ways.” Teachers College Record 116, no. 10 (October 2014): 1–46.
Sahlberg, Pasi. Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland? Teachers College Press, 2011.
Sawchuk, Stephen. “Full Cost of Professional Development Hidden.” Education Week, November 10, 2010. http://www.edweek.org/ew/
articles/2010/11/10/11pd_costs.h30.html.
Sclafani, Susan. “Rethinking Human Capital in Education: Singapore as a Model for Teacher Development.” Aspen Institute, 2008.
Singapore Ministry of Education. “Salary & Benefits.” Accessed April 15, 2016. https://www.moe.gov.sg/careers/teach/salary-benefits.
Sloan, Kay, and Juliane Blazevski. “New Visions Hunter College Urban Teacher Residency: Measures of Success.” San Francisco, CA:
Rockman et al, March 2015.
Starr, Paul. The Social Transformation of American Medicine. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1983.
Staub, Shari Dickstein, and Sarah Scott Frank. “Clinically Oriented Teacher Preparation: What Do We Know about Effective Practices?” Urban Teacher Residency United, June 2015.
“Teacher-Recruitment Challenges: A Special Report.” Accessed February 17, 2016. http://www.edweek.org/ew/collections/
teacher-recruitment-challenges-2016/index.html.
“TechTeach At A Glance | Undergraduate | College of Education | TTU.” Accessed April 26, 2016. https://www.depts.ttu.edu/
education/undergraduate/tech-teach-at-a-glance.php.
The College of Education, Western Oregon University. “Innovations in Clinical Practice,” Fall 2015. https://www.wou.edu/education/
Licensure/WOU%20COE%20 Innovations%20Fall%202015.pdf.
“The Path to Modernizing and Elevating Teaching.” TeachStrong. Accessed May 31, 2016. http://teachstrong.org/.
“Transforming Teacher Education through Clinical Practice: A National Strategy to Prepare Effective Teachers.” Education Digest:
Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review 76, no. 7 (March 1, 2011): 9–13.
“Trellis.” Trellis Education. Accessed June 12, 2016. http://www.trelliseducation.org/.
Tucker, Marc S. and Linda Darling-Hammond. Surpassing Shanghai: An Agenda for American Education Built on the World’s Leading
Systems. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2011.
“Tutoring & Driving Schools in the US Market Research | IBISWorld.” Accessed May 25, 2016. http://www.ibisworld.com/industry
42
/default.aspx?indid=1544&partnerid=ValuationResources.
Tyack, David B. The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974.
United Nations General Assembly. “Convention on the Rights of the Child,” November 20, 1989. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/
ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx.
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Elementary and Secondary Schools (Including Private, State, and Local Government Schools)
- May 2015 OES Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates.” United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, May
2015. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_611100.htm#25-0000.
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Occupational Employment and Wages: Substitute Teachers.” United States Bureau of
Labor Statistics, May 2015. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes253098.htm.
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Occupational Employment and Wages: Teacher Assistants.” United States Bureau of
Labor Statistics, May 2015. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes259041.htm.
United States Department of Education. “Equitable Access to Excellent Educators.” United States Department of Education, September 10, 2015. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/resources.html.
United States Department of Education. “Higher Education Act Title II Reporting System - 2015 Title II Reports.” United States Department
of Education, 2015. https://title2.ed.gov/Public/Home.aspx.
United States Department of Education. “National Teacher Preparation Data at-a-Glance.” United States Department of Education,
October 2015. https://title2.ed.gov/Public/SecReport.aspx.
United States Department of Education. “Pathways to Teaching: Higher Education Act Title II Reporting System (2015).” U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 2015.
Weick, Karl E. “Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems.” Administrative Science Quarterly 21, no. 1 (March 1976): 1–19.
Weiss, Carol H. “The Interface between Evaluation and Public Policy.” Evaluation 5, no. 4 (October 1999): 468.
Yoon, Kwang Suk, Teresa Duncan, Silvia Wen-Yu Lee, Beth Scarloss, and Kathy L. Shapley. “Reviewing the Evidence on How Teacher Professional Development Affects Student Achievement.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest, 2007.
Zimpher, Nancy, and Kenneth Howey. “Creating 21st-Century Centers of Pedagogy: Explicating Key Laboratory and Clinical Elements of Teacher Preparation.” Education 133, no. 4 (2013): 409–21.
43
About Bank Street
Bank Street College is a leader in education, a pioneer in improving the quality of classroom practice, and
a national advocate for children and their families.
Since its beginnings in 1916, Bank Street has been at the forefront of understanding how children learn and
grow. From early childhood centers and schools to hospitals and museums, Bank Street has built a national
reputation on the simple fact that our graduates know how to do the work that is right for children.
Through Bank Street’s Graduate School of Education, Children’s Programs, and Division of Innovation,
Policy and Research, the College has helped to transform the way teachers and children engage in learning.
At the Graduate School, students are trained in a model we have honed for a century by combining the
study of human development and learning theory with sustained clinical practice that promotes significant
development as a teacher prior to graduation. At Bank Street’s School for Children, Family Center, Head
Start, and Liberty LEADS, the College fosters children’s development in the broadest sense by providing
diverse opportunities for physical, social, emotional, and cognitive growth. The College further supports
and influences positive outcomes for children, educators, and families through professional development
programs, research projects, and other key efforts at the district, state, and federal levels.
In 2015, Bank Street launched the Sustainable Funding Project under the leadership of President Shael
Polakow-Suransky and Dean of Innovation, Policy and Research Josh Thomases. Led by Director Karen
DeMoss, the project’s mission is to address a significant problem in public education: how to ensure all
aspiring teachers matriculate through affordable, high-quality programs so that every teacher enters the
profession prepared for the demands of 21st century classrooms. For the past 100 years, Bank Street has
been deeply committed to teacher preparation, professional development, and education reform. This
commitment, coupled with the new administration’s deep experience in public education, has helped the
College identify sustainable funding for quality teacher preparation as a major challenge worthy of our
focused attention.
For more information, please visit www.bankstreet.edu.
44